The Ancient Path, Freshly Walked

As the Bhagavān has said: the learner's own practice-path possesses the learner's own eight branches — of these that he possesses, how many are past, how many future, and how many present?

Such chapters as these, and the meaning of their explanation, having already been grasped, ought now to be explained at length. One asks: for what reason is this treatise composed? The answer: it is in order to explain the meaning of a certain scripture — that is, the scripture states: the learner's own practice-path possesses the learner's own eight branches, while the arhat who has exhausted the outflows possesses the non-learner's own ten branches. Although the scripture speaks in this way, it does not state how many of these he possesses are past, how many future, and how many present.

The scripture is the very root this treatise relies upon, and what it does not state ought now to be stated. Further, it is in order to put a stop to what other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle — that is, there are those who hold that the past and future possess no genuinely real own-nature, and that the present, although it does exist, is itself unconditioned. In order to put a stop to this intention, it is displayed that the past and future are indeed genuinely real and capable of being possessed — for, were they not existent, they ought not to be capable of being possessed at all, exactly as a second head, or the sixth aggregate, and the like, being incapable of being possessed, are thereby known not to be real; whereas the past and future, being indeed capable of being possessed, are thereby known to be genuinely real. Further, it is in order to display that the dharma of the present world are certainly conditioned, possessing arising and ceasing. There are, further, those who hold that there exists no genuinely real property of possession or non-possession, as the Dārṣṭāntikas hold, who maintain that a sentient being not separated from various dharma is named a possessor, while, at the time of being separated from those dharma, he is named a non-possessor, both being merely conventional designations — exactly as the five fingers, joined together, are conventionally called a fist, while, separated, they no longer constitute a fist; this, too, is just the same. One asks: for what reason do they hold this position? The answer: they hold this position in reliance upon a certain scripture — that is, the scripture states that there was a wheel-turning king who possessed the seven treasures. If the property of possession were genuinely real, then, by possessing the wheel-treasure and the wish-fulfilling-jewel treasure, the very own-nature of dharma itself ought to break down — for what reason is this so? Because these are at once sentient and non-sentient. By possessing the elephant-treasure and the horse-treasure, the very category of destiny ought, further, to break down — for what reason is this so? Because these are at once an animal and a human being. By possessing the woman-treasure, the very category of body ought, further, to break down — for what reason is this so? Because this is at once a male body and a female body. By possessing the general-treasure and the treasurer-treasure ministers, the very category of karma ought, further, to break down — for what reason is this so?

Because the ruler's own karma and the minister's own karma would become confused with one another. Lest there be this very fault, the property of possession is thereby certainly not genuinely real. In order to put a stop to this intention, it is displayed that the property of possession is certainly genuinely real — for, were it not so, this would contradict the scripture. As it is stated: the learner's own practice-path possesses the learner's own eight branches, while the arhat who has exhausted the outflows possesses the non-learner's own ten branches — and, at the very moment a noble one gives rise to a contaminated mind, he ought then not to possess any of the past or future undefiled dharma whatsoever, so how could he be said to possess the eight branches or the ten branches? This would, further, contradict yet another scripture, as it states: such-and-such an individual possesses wholesome dharma and unwholesome dharma — and, at the very moment that wholesome dharma manifests, he ought then not to possess the unwholesome dharma, while, at the very moment the unwholesome dharma manifests,

he ought then not to possess the wholesome dharma; and, at the very moment a neutral-and-unobscured dharma manifests, he ought then not to possess either the wholesome or the unwholesome dharma — so how could it be said that he possesses both wholesome and unwholesome dharma? This would, further, contradict yet another scripture, as it states: whoever possesses the seven wholesome dharma dwells, within that very visible life, largely in joy and happiness, and, cultivating diligently in accordance with principle, is certain to be capable of exhausting the outflows — the seven wholesome dharma being: knowing the dharma, knowing its meaning, and so on, stated at length — and, were any single one of these seven to manifest, he ought then not to possess the remaining six wholesome dharma, while, were some other dharma to manifest, he ought then not to possess any of the seven at all — so how could it be said that he possesses the seven wholesome dharma? This would, further, contradict yet another scripture, as it states: the Tathāgata possesses the ten powers — and, were any single power to manifest, he ought then not to possess the remaining nine, while, were some other dharma to manifest, he ought then not to possess any of the ten at all — so how, then, could the Tathāgata be said to possess the ten powers?

There is, further, yet another fault: whenever an ordinary being's own undefiled mind manifests and abides in the present, he ought then to become a non-learner, since he would not, at that moment, possess any of the three realms' own afflictions whatsoever; and whenever a non-learner gives rise to a contaminated mind that manifests in the present, he ought then to become an ordinary being, since he would not, at that moment, possess any of the learner's or the non-learner's own dharma whatsoever. Lest there be this very fault, the property of possession is thereby certainly and decidedly genuinely real. One asks: if the property of possession is indeed genuinely real, then

how is one to reconcile this with the scripture the Dārṣṭāntikas cited earlier? The answer: the wheel-turning king possesses, with respect to these treasures, a genuinely sovereign power, using and enjoying them freely, exactly as though he genuinely possessed them, and it is on this basis that the name "possession" is applied — but, if one entirely denies the existence of any genuinely real property of possession whatsoever, how could the name "possession" ever be applied to him at all? There are, further, yet other teachers who grant the existence of possession while denying non-possession, who maintain as follows: the property of possession, since it possesses a genuine function, may indeed be genuinely real, but the property of non-possession, possessing no function whatsoever, how could it be genuinely real? In order to put a stop to this holding, it is displayed that non-possession, too, is genuinely real. If non-possession were not genuinely real, then possession itself, being established only in mutual dependence upon its counterpart, ought likewise not to be genuinely real — exactly as shadow and light, brightness and darkness, day and night, cold and heat, and the like, are established only in mutual dependence upon one another, neither being possible without the other; this, too, is just the same. Further, the property of non-possession and the property of possession, being closely mutually opposed to one another, are both genuinely real, exactly as craving and non-craving, aversion and non-aversion, delusion and non-delusion, and the like, being closely mutually opposed to one another, are both genuinely real. Further, if non-possession were not a genuinely real property, then the cutting-off of affliction ought not to be established as a genuine dharma at all — for what reason is this so? It is not that the noble path itself arises and thereby cuts off the various afflictions,

exactly as a knife cuts an object, or a stone grinds fragrant wood. Rather, at the very moment the various noble paths manifest, they cause the possession of the various afflictions to cease, and likewise cause the non-possession of those same afflictions to arise — and it is at that very moment that one speaks of "cutting off the various afflictions." There are, further, yet others who hold that the path is itself unconditioned, as the Vibhajyavādins hold, who maintain as follows: there exists only a single, unsurpassed, perfect awakening, eternally abiding and never perishing, and, according to whichever Buddha appears within the world, although the ones who realize it differ, that which is realized is never distinct — exactly as a single, mighty elephant, wondrously adorned and caparisoned, though mounted and ridden in succession by many different people, remains, before and after, one and the same elephant. One asks: for what reason do they hold this position? The answer: they hold this position in reliance upon a certain scripture — that is, the scripture states: the Buddha told the monks, I have realized the ancient path — and it is by virtue of this that they know the noble path is certainly unconditioned. In order to put a stop to this holding, it is intended to display that the noble path falls within the three times, and is thereby certainly conditioned, not an unconditioned dharma, since it falls within the three times. Further, to hold that the noble path's own very substance is unconditioned directly contradicts the scripture — as the scripture states: there was a certain lay devotee named Viśākha, who came before the nun Dharmadinnā and asked her:

is the noble path conditioned, or is it unconditioned? The nun replied: the noble path is conditioned, since it falls within the three times. One asks: if the noble path is indeed conditioned, then how is one to reconcile this with the scripture the Vibhajyavādins cited earlier? The answer: it is by virtue of a resemblance in five respects that it is named "the ancient path."

First, a resemblance in ground, since every Buddha attains awakening in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna. Second, a resemblance in preparatory effort, since every Buddha passes through three incalculable eons cultivating the six perfections to their full completion. Third, a resemblance in object, since every Buddha realizes awakening by taking the principle of the four noble truths as his object. Fourth, a resemblance in aspect, since every Buddha cultivates the noble path by means of the sixteen aspects, such as suffering and impermanence and the rest.

Fifth, a resemblance in accomplished deed, since every Buddha, by the power of the undefiled path, cuts off every affliction within his own person, and likewise causes measureless, boundless sentient beings to attain the bliss of nirvāṇa. If one does not rely upon this explanation of the term "ancient path," but instead holds that "ancient" itself means unconditioned, then, by that same reasoning, when that very scripture speaks of an "ancient city" or an "ancient capital," ought that ancient city or capital, too, be an unconditioned dharma? Further, if, because the scripture states "I have realized the ancient noble path," one thereby holds that the noble path is an unconditioned dharma, the scripture likewise states that a snake sheds its own old skin — ought a snake's own old skin, too, be an unconditioned dharma? As the verse states:

If one has cut off craving entirely without remainder, exactly as a lotus flower stands within water, the monk relinquishes both this shore and that, exactly as a snake sheds its own old skin. Exactly as the ancient city and the rest are all conditioned, so too, by the same principle, ought the term "the ancient noble path" to be understood. It is in order to put a stop to what these other schools maintain, and to display the correct principle of the various dharma, that this treatise is composed.

As the Bhagavān has said: the learner's own practice-path possesses the learner's own eight branches — here, what are the learner's own eight branches? This refers to the learner's own right view, up through right concentration, being possessed. One asks: who possesses these — is it the dharma themselves that possess, or is it the individual who possesses? Whichever position one grants, there is a fault. Why is this so? If it is the dharma themselves that possess, then, since every dharma is entirely without any function whatsoever, among these functionless dharma, which dharma is capable of possessing, and which dharma is the very thing possessed? If it is the individual who possesses, then, in ultimate truth and ultimate meaning, no individual whatsoever can genuinely be found at all — and, there being no genuinely real individual, how could one say that he is capable of possessing the dharma? The answer: one ought to say as follows — it is neither the dharma that possess, nor the individual who possesses; rather, there exists a genuinely real property of possession and of non-possession, yet there exists no genuinely real possessor or non-possessor — exactly as there exists a genuinely real defilement and purification, bondage and liberation, transmigration and cessation, cause and fruit, dying and being born, karma and its ripened fruit, the path and the fruit of the path, yet there exists no genuinely real defiled or purified being, nor one who cultivates the path or realizes the fruit of the path. There are those who say: it is the dharma that possess. One asks: if this is so, then, the dharma being without function, how could they possess? The answer: although the various dharma are indeed without function, they do possess a genuine capacity. One asks: if this is so, then the eye sense-field ought to possess the remaining eleven sense-fields, and the remaining eleven sense-fields ought likewise to possess the eye sense-field. The answer: reasoning in this way, too, is without fault, since all of them possess a genuine capacity to draw one another forth in mutual dependence. The verdict: one ought to say as follows — that which possesses is neither the dharma, nor the individual, since there exists no genuinely real function, and since the individual is not genuinely real; rather, at the very moment the four or five aggregates arise, their arising together with an attainment of this same kind is what is named "possession," while their arising together with a non-attainment of this same kind is named "non-possession." One asks: if this is so, then how is one to reconcile this with what the scripture states? As it states: such-and-such an individual possesses wholesome dharma and unwholesome dharma. The answer: this is the Bhagavān speaking, with reference to the various aggregates, in conventional terms — he does not state that there genuinely and really exists an individual who possesses the various dharma. One asks: here, what, precisely, is the very meaning of "possession"? The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: the meaning of "not yet cut off" is the very meaning of possession.

One asks: if this is so, then, an individual bound by every fetter being called "not yet cut off" with respect to every dharma whatsoever, he ought then to possess all of them. The answer: he does not possess all of them, since some of them he has not yet attained. There are, further, those who say: the meaning of "already attained" is the very meaning of possession. One asks: if this is so, then a non-learner, having already attained the learner's own dharma, ought to possess it. The answer: he does not possess it, since he has already relinquished it. There are, further, those who say: the meaning of "not having relinquished" is the very meaning of possession. One asks: if this is so, then a learner, not having relinquished the non-learner's own dharma, ought to possess it. The answer: he does not possess it, since he has not yet attained it. There are, further, those who say:

the meaning of "already attained and not yet relinquished" is the very meaning of possession. This statement accords with reason, since, whenever a dharma has already been attained and not yet relinquished, it must certainly be possessed. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: a conventional sentient being, not separated from the various dharma, is conventionally said to possess them, since, in ultimate truth, there exists no genuine property of possession whatsoever. One asks: for what reason is "the learner" named as such — is it because he studies what is to be learned, or because he has attained the learner's own dharma? Whichever position one grants, there is a fault. Why is this so? If he is named "the learner" because he studies what is to be learned, then how is one to reconcile this with what the Concentration Aggregate states? As it states: there is one who is a learner yet not one who studies what is to be learned — namely, a learner abiding in his own self-nature. If he is named "the learner" because he has attained the learner's own dharma, then how is one to reconcile this with what a certain scripture states? As it states: the Buddha said to Jīvaka, it is because he studies what is to be learned that he is named the learner. The answer: one ought to say that it is indeed because he studies what is to be learned that he is named the learner. One asks: if this is so, then how is one to reconcile this with what the Concentration Aggregate states? The answer: that passage speaks of what is conventionally, commonly called "a learner" — that is, at the very time he is studying, but has not yet fully studied, what is to be learned, the world commonly calls him a learner, and it is for this reason that the compiler of the root treatise there speaks of him as a learner, though he is not, in that strict sense, genuinely still studying. Further, since his own aspiration toward what is to be learned has not yet ceased, it is with reference to that very aspiring mind that he is called a learner. There are those who say: it is because he has attained the learner's own dharma that he is named the learner.

One asks: if this is so, then how is one to reconcile this with what a certain scripture states? The answer: that scripture speaks with reference to his own unceasing aspiring mind, since he does not relinquish his own preparatory effort — that is, although a learner may give rise to a wholesome mind, or to an unwholesome mind, or to a neutral-and-unobscured mind, he never relinquishes his own mind bent toward nirvāṇa, together with his own preparatory effort toward it, and it is for this reason that he is, at every moment, called one who studies what is to be learned — yet there are indeed also occasions when he is not, in the strict sense, studying what is to be learned, exactly as a person, briefly resting along the road, is asked by someone, where are you headed? and the person answers, I am headed toward such-and-such a place — since he has not relinquished his own mind bent toward that destination, even while resting, he is still said to be headed there. Since this is the very practice-path of a learner, it is named the learner's own practice-path. One asks: the non-learner's own practice-path is clear, pure, supreme, and sublime, far surpassing that of the learner — for what reason, then, does the scripture speak solely of the learner's own practice-path? The answer: it ought indeed also to speak of the non-learner's own practice-path, and that it does not is a case of something left unsaid elsewhere. Further, since the beginning has already been stated, the end, too, has thereby already been stated — having already stated the learner's own path, the non-learner's is thereby likewise stated. Further, it is in order to display that each possesses its own distinct, supreme matter — namely, that the learner's own stage possesses a supreme practice-path, while the non-learner's own stage possesses a supreme liberation, exactly as a king and his ministers each possess their own supreme matter, the king's own supreme matter being his noble dignity and awe-inspiring authority, the minister's own supreme matter being his valor in battle and his affairs of state. Further, the learner's own practice-path is capable of cutting off affliction, overcoming the enemy of affliction, which the non-learner's is not. Further, the learner's own practice-path, for the sake of cutting off affliction, diligently cultivates preparatory effort, which the non-learner's does not. Further, the very meaning of "repeated conduct" is the very meaning of "practice-path" — the learner repeatedly conducts himself thus, which the non-learner does not — and it is for this reason that the non-learner's own practice-path is not spoken of. As for how many of these he possesses being past, how many future, and how many present: the answer: if, in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection, the learner's own vision first manifests in the present, none are past, while eight are both future and present. Here, the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection refers to the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, and the first dhyāna itself. As for "in dependence upon": there are those who say that this refers to what co-arises with it; there are, further, those who say that this refers to the immediately-equal antecedent condition. The verdict: one ought to say that it is precisely these same two grounds, taken together in general, that constitute this dependence. As for "first": this is of four kinds — first, the very first moment of entering the fixed state of freedom from birth, this referring to first entering the fixed state of freedom from birth in dependence upon that ground; second, the very first moment of attaining the fruit, this referring to first attaining the learner's own fruit in dependence upon that ground; third, the very first moment of transforming one's own faculty, this referring to one who follows through faith transformed into resolve first sharpening his own faculty and becoming one who has arrived at insight, in dependence upon that ground; fourth, the very first moment of becoming free of defilement, this referring to the worldly path, having already become free of the various defilements, first giving rise to the undefiled path that manifests in the present, in dependence upon that ground. Here, this treatise proceeds, in general, in reliance upon these same four "firsts."

and, passing through the various stages, some possess all four, some fewer, and this should be carefully discerned according to what is fitting in each case. As for the learner's own vision manifesting in the present: one asks: a learner, too, may give rise to a vision that is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's own — this, too, is a learner's own vision, since it is a vision that this same learner has given rise to — so why does this treatise not speak of the learner's own such vision manifesting in the present? The answer: one ought indeed to say so, and that it does not is a case of something left unsaid elsewhere. Further, here, it is precisely the learner's own vision, in the strict sense, that is spoken of as "the learner's own vision" — not the learner's own vision in general — and it is for this reason that no objection ought to be raised. As for "none are past": this refers to what was already stated before — at the very moment each first instant manifests in the present, there exists no past whatsoever, since not a single moment of it has yet arisen and ceased, whether through having already arisen and ceased, through attaining the fruit, through transforming one's own faculty, or through retrogression and relinquishment. As for "eight are future": this refers to the fact that, at this very first moment, all eight of the learner's own branches are fully cultivated as future dharma.

As for "eight are present": this refers to the fact that, at that very moment, all eight branches manifest in the present. Once they have ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision continuing to manifest in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: here, eight are past, eight future, and eight present. Here, "those" refers to those same eight branches; "once ceased" refers to impermanence itself; "once ceased, not lost" refers to the fact that it is by virtue of three causes and conditions that the undefiled path is lost — first, by attaining the fruit; second, by transforming one's own faculty; third, by retrogression and relinquishment — and, there being none of these three conditions present, it is said that they are not lost. As for the case of continuing in dependence, referring to what occurs from the second moment onward, continuing to give rise to the learner's own vision in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: one asks: for what reason does he give rise once again to this ground's own vision? The answer: it is out of a mindful gratitude wishing to repay a debt — that is, since it is in dependence upon this ground that he has broken the enemy of affliction, it is out of mindful gratitude, wishing to repay that debt, that he gives rise to it once again, exactly as, having subdued an enemy by means of one's own armor and weapons, one repeatedly maintains, treasures, and safeguards them thereafter. Further, it is by virtue of four conditions that he gives rise to it once again — first, for the sake of dwelling in the very bliss of this visible life; second, for the sake of sporting in his own attainments; third, for the sake of contemplating what he has already accomplished; fourth, for the sake of making use of his own noble wealth. As for "eight are past": this refers to the fact that, from the second moment onward, he possesses, as past, what had already arisen and ceased at the very first moment. As for eight each being future and present: this should be understood as stated before, and it should be understood that, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: eight are past, eight future, and seven present. Here, the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection refers to the second, third, and fourth dhyānas. One asks: for what reason is the intermediate dhyāna not spoken of here? The answer: it ought indeed to be spoken of, and that it is not is a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, the intermediate dhyāna possesses neither more nor fewer branches than the latter three grounds, and it is for this reason that it is not separately spoken of. As for eight each being past and future: this should be understood as stated before. As for "seven are present": this excludes right intention, since that ground possesses no directed thought whatsoever; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: eight are past, eight future, and four present.

Here, formless concentration refers to the first three formless attainments. One asks: for what reason is the fourth formless attainment not spoken of here? The answer: that ground possesses no noble path whatsoever, and it will later be stated that only a worldly mind arises there. As for eight each being past and future: this should be understood as stated before. As for "four are present": this excludes right intention, right speech, right action, and right livelihood, since that ground possesses none of these; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of entering the attainment of cessation, or of a worldly mind manifesting in the present: eight are past, eight future, and none present. Here, "entering the attainment of cessation" refers to genuinely abiding within the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling; "a worldly mind" refers to a contaminated concentrated mind that emerges from the attainment of cessation, or that otherwise gives rise to some other contaminated concentrated mind. As for eight each being past and future: this refers to the eight branches of the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection first given rise to before, together with what is yet to be cultivated as future. As for "none are present": this is because, at the very time one abides in the attainment of cessation, there exists no noble path whatsoever, and, at the very time of a worldly mind, none of the eight undefiled path-branches are given rise to.

As for the case of the learner's own vision first manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: none are past, eight future, and seven present. Here, the meaning of "in dependence upon" should be understood as stated before. The concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection refers to the latter three dhyānas; as for "first," this is of four kinds, exactly as fully stated before; the meaning of "the learner's own vision" should likewise be understood as stated before. As for "none are past": at the very first moment, not a single moment of it has yet arisen and ceased, or, if already arisen and ceased, this is due to the three conditions of relinquishment. As for "eight are future": this refers to the fact that, at this very first moment, all eight of the learner's own branches are fully cultivated as future dharma. As for "seven are present": this ground possesses no right intention whatsoever; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision continuing to manifest in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: seven are past, present, and eight future. Here, "once ceased, not lost" and the rest should be understood as explained before. As for "seven are past": this refers to the fact that, from the second moment onward, he possesses, as past, the seven that had already arisen and ceased at the very first moment; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: seven are past, eight future, and four present. Here, "seven are past" refers to what had already arisen and ceased at the very first moment; the rest should be understood as explained before, and it should be understood that, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of entering the attainment of cessation, or of a worldly mind manifesting in the present: seven are past, eight future, and none present. Here, everything should be understood exactly as before, and it should be understood that, once ceased, they are not lost.

As for the case of the learner's own vision manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: seven are past, eight both future and present. Here, "seven are past" refers to the seven branches of the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection first given rise to before; "eight are future" refers to what is cultivated as future belonging to that very first stage. Speaking from after entering the attainment of cessation or a worldly mind, the case of giving rise to the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection will be distinguished later.

As for the case of the learner's own vision first manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: none are past, eight future, and four present. Here, formless concentration refers to the first three. As for "first": this treatise proceeds solely with reference to becoming free of defilement, since it is only after the worldly path has already become free of the various defilements that one first gives rise to the undefiled first, third formless concentration manifesting in the present — there being no meaning of entering the path of seeing in dependence upon the formless attainments, and thus no "first entering the fixed state of freedom from birth"; nor is there any meaning of attaining the learner's own fruit in dependence upon the formless attainments as a "first"; nor is there any meaning of a learner sharpening his own faculty in dependence upon the formless attainments — and it is for this reason that there is no "first" of attaining the fruit or of transforming one's own faculty here. The remaining points should be understood as explained before. One asks: a contaminated formless attainment necessarily arises in dependence upon an undefiled dhyāna as its own preparatory effort — an undefiled formless attainment, too, ought likewise necessarily to arise in dependence upon an undefiled dhyāna as its own preparatory effort — for what reason, then, does this treatise state that, in dependence upon a formless concentration, the learner's own vision first manifesting in the present, none of the eight branches are possessed as past? The answer: the undefiled path-branches include some belonging to the dhyānas and some belonging to the formless attainments — those belonging to the dhyānas, although possessed as past, those belonging to the formless attainments are not possessed as past, and it is for this reason that it is said that none of the eight branches are possessed as past. There are those who say: there is one who, in dependence upon the worldly path, has already attained the fruit of non-returning, without giving rise to the undefiled path, and who, further, by the worldly path, has become free of the four dhyānas' own defilement, or, further, has become free of the three formless attainments' own defilement, and who, at the very first moment of giving rise to the undefiled formless concentration manifesting in the present, possesses no noble path of eight branches whatsoever as past.

and it is for this reason that it is said that none whatsoever are past; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision continuing to manifest in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: four are both past and present, eight future. Here, "four are past" refers to the four branches of the very first moment first given rise to before; "eight are future" refers to the eight branches already cultivated as future before. The rest should be understood as explained before; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of entering the attainment of cessation, or of a worldly mind manifesting in the present: four are past, eight future, and none present. Here, everything should be understood exactly as before, and it should be understood that, once ceased, they are not lost.

As for the case of the learner's own vision manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: four are past, eight both future and present. Here, "four are past" refers to the four branches first given rise to at the formless concentration's own initial moment; "eight are future" refers to the eight branches cultivated as future at that very time. One asks: immediately following a formless concentration, one is certainly incapable of giving rise to a concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection — for what reason, then, does this treatise speak in this way here? The answer: it should be understood that what is spoken of here is a mere sequence, not a fixed sequence, spoken of in accordance with what conforms to it, not spoken of in dependence upon a fixed sequence; once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the learner's own vision manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: four are past, eight future, and seven present. Here, "four are past" refers to the four branches first given rise to earlier in dependence upon a formless concentration; "eight are future" refers to the eight branches cultivated as future at that very time. One asks: the eight branches of the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection given rise to just before this — once they enter the past, ought they not all to be unlost? How, then, can it be said that only four are past? The answer: what is spoken of here, both past and future, displays solely what was first given rise to and cultivated, not what was given rise to and cultivated at a later stage, and it is for this reason that there is no fault; the present is spoken of according to whatever happens to manifest at that particular moment, following whatever has arisen. One asks: which kind of learner, precisely, is spoken of here? The answer: it refers to those learners who enter every concentration in strict, unbroken sequence, exactly as one climbs a staircase step by step in order — that is, a learner who first enters the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection, next enters the concentration possessing neither, next enters a formless concentration, next enters the attainment of cessation, and afterward gives rise to a worldly mind — such a learner is precisely what is spoken of here. As for a learner who first enters the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection, next enters the concentration possessing neither, next enters a formless concentration, next enters the attainment of cessation, and afterward gives rise to an undefiled mind — such learners are not what is spoken of here, exactly as the Miscellaneous Aggregate states: if there is a certain kind of individual who possesses the complete twelve-linked dependent-origination, this is what is spoken of there; whoever does not possess it complete is not what is spoken of there — exactly as the scripture states: one first sees a woman's own form and appearance, upright and comely, delighted in by all who see her; next one sees her grown old and feeble; next one sees her afflicted by illness; next one sees her life come to an end; next one sees the various stages of her decay after death — such a woman is what that scripture speaks of; whoever is not thus is not what that scripture speaks of. Here, too, the learner spoken of should be understood in just this same way. The verdict: one ought to say that what is spoken of here, in general, is every learner without exception, since, according to whatever stage each learner happens to be in, the learner's own branches given rise to there are, in every case, fully gathered in. It should be understood that the practice-path admits of four distinctions — first, painful-and-slow practice; second, painful-and-fast practice; third, pleasant-and-slow practice; fourth, pleasant-and-fast practice. Yet the various practice-paths might also be said to be of a single kind — namely, the practice tending toward the cessation of suffering, the practice tending toward the cessation of the worldly round of birth, old age, sickness, and death; or they might be said to be of two kinds — namely, the practice tending toward the cessation of name, and the practice tending toward the cessation of form; or they might be said to be of three kinds — namely, the practice tending toward the cessation of the three realms; or they might be said to be of five kinds — namely, the practice tending toward the cessation of the five aggregates; or they might be said to be of twelve kinds — namely, the practice tending toward the cessation of the twelve-linked dependent origination; or they might be said to be of measureless kinds — namely, since the distinctions among the moments of the mental continuum are themselves without any boundary or limit whatsoever. One asks: for what reason does the Bhagavān speak expansively of one, two, and three, yet abbreviate twelve and the rest, establishing precisely these four kinds of practice-path? The answer: it is by virtue of three matters — first, by virtue of ground; second, by virtue of faculty; third, by virtue of the individual. This is the general statement; if stated distinctly, it is by virtue of only two matters — namely, by virtue of ground and of faculty, or by virtue of ground and of the individual. As for by virtue of ground and of faculty: this refers to the fact that, within the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the three formless attainments, whatever noble path belongs to those of dull faculty is named painful-and-slow practice, while, within these same grounds, whatever noble path belongs to those of keen faculty is named painful-and-fast practice; and, within the four fundamental dhyānas, whatever noble path belongs to those of dull faculty is named pleasant-and-slow practice, while, within these same grounds, whatever noble path belongs to those of keen faculty is named pleasant-and-fast practice. As for by virtue of ground and of the individual: this refers to the fact that, within the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the three formless attainments, whatever noble path belongs to one who follows through faith, or to one who follows through faith transformed into resolve, or to one liberated depending on occasion, is named painful-and-slow practice, while, within these same grounds, whatever noble path belongs to one who follows through the dharma, or to one who has arrived at insight, or to one liberated not depending on occasion, is named painful-and-fast practice; and, within the four fundamental dhyānas, whatever noble path belongs to one who follows through faith, or to one who follows through faith transformed into resolve, or to one liberated depending on occasion, is named pleasant-and-slow practice, while, within these same grounds, whatever noble path belongs to one who follows through the dharma, or to one who has arrived at insight, or to one liberated not depending on occasion, is named pleasant-and-fast practice.

One asks: what is the very own-nature of these four practice-paths? The answer: they take the five aggregates or the four aggregates as their own own-nature — that is, within the dhyānas and their own preliminary stages, they take the five aggregates as their own-nature; within the formless attainments, they take the four aggregates as their own-nature. Such is named the very own-nature of the practice-path — its own self, its own substance, its own characteristic-portion, its own root nature. Having already stated its own-nature, the reason for it ought now to be stated. One asks: for what reason is it named "practice-path"? What is the very meaning of "practice-path"? The answer: "practice" refers to penetrating through; "path" refers to a course of conduct — being genuinely capable of penetrating through toward nirvāṇa, this is the very meaning of "practice-path." As for "painful-and-slow practice": one asks: the noble path is not itself the own-nature of a painful feeling, nor is it associated with a painful feeling — for what reason, then, is it named "painful"? The answer: since the preliminary stages and the formless attainments are difficult to accomplish, the noble path arising there is said to be "painful"; since the fundamental dhyānas are easy to accomplish, the noble path arising there is said to be "pleasant" — this is analyzed at length before, in the discussion of the four dhyānas within the Fetters Aggregate. One asks: for what reason is the noble path said to be "slow"? The answer: it is because the noble path arisen in one of dull faculty is incapable of swiftly reaching final nirvāṇa that it is said to be "slow"; the noble path arisen in one of keen faculty swiftly reaches nirvāṇa, and it is for this reason that it is said to be "fast." One asks: there is one who, through faith transformed into resolve, reaches nirvāṇa swiftly, surpassing one who has arrived at insight — that is, one who follows through faith transformed into resolve, cultivating with diligent effort, swiftly realizes nirvāṇa, while one who has arrived at insight, being indolent, is incapable of swift realization — as it is said in a verse:

Non-negligence and negligence, wakefulness abounding and slumber — exactly as one riding a swift horse and one riding a slow horse, whoever exerts himself diligently arrives first. Exactly as there are two people both headed toward the same destination, one riding a swift horse, one riding a slow horse — the one riding the swift horse, not exerting himself diligently, is incapable of arriving swiftly, while the one riding the slow horse, by exerting himself diligently, is thereby capable of arriving swiftly. Just so, one who has arrived at insight and one who follows through faith transformed into resolve, both headed toward nirvāṇa,

if one who follows through faith transformed into resolve cultivates with diligent effort, he swiftly realizes nirvāṇa, while one who has arrived at insight, being indolent, is incapable of swift realization — how, then, can it be said that the noble path of dull faculty, incapable of swiftly reaching its goal, is named "slow"? The answer: what is intended here is spoken with reference to those who exert themselves equally diligently — if both exert themselves with equal diligence, one who has arrived at insight realizes swiftly,

while one who follows through faith transformed into resolve does not, and it is for this reason that the latter is said to be "slow." One asks: these four kinds of practice take the five aggregates or the four aggregates as their own-nature — for what reason, then, are they named "penetrating"? "Penetrating" ought to name wisdom alone, not the remaining aggregates. The answer: it is because wisdom predominates that they are named "penetrating" — exactly as, although the path of seeing indeed possesses the complete five aggregates, it is because wisdom predominates that it is named solely "seeing"; exactly as the various kinds of worldly, conventional knowledge belonging to the border of direct realization, although taking the four or five aggregates as their own-nature, are, because wisdom predominates, named solely "knowledge"; exactly as the concentration like a diamond, although taking the four or five aggregates as its own-nature, is, because concentration predominates, named solely "concentration" — the practice-path, too, is just the same, and no objection ought therefore to be raised.

As the scripture states: what is painful-and-slow practice? It refers to the monks who censure, condemn, and abhor the five grasping-aggregates. One asks: painful-and-slow practice takes the four noble truths as its own object — for what reason, then, does the Bhagavān speak solely of taking suffering as its object? The answer: it ought indeed also to speak of it taking the remaining three truths as its object, and that it does not is a case of something left unsaid elsewhere. Further, since the truth of suffering comes first, and it is already stated that it takes suffering as its object, it should be understood that it likewise takes the remaining three truths as its object. Further, that scripture displays solely the preparatory effort, not yet displaying the fundamental attainment — that is, at the time of preparatory effort, it takes the five grasping-aggregates as its object, giving rise to an aspect of abhorrence; upon reaching the fundamental attainment, it takes the four noble truths as its object. The Saṅgītiparyāya states as follows: what is painful-and-slow practice? It refers to the five faculties of faith and the rest, of dull quality, not gathered within the dhyānas. What is painful-and-fast practice? It refers to the five faculties of faith and the rest, of keen quality, not gathered within the dhyānas. What is pleasant-and-slow practice?

It refers to the five faculties of faith and the rest, of dull quality, gathered within the dhyānas. What is pleasant-and-fast practice? It refers to the five faculties of faith and the rest, of keen quality, gathered within the dhyānas.

One asks: these four kinds of practice take the five aggregates or the four aggregates as their own-nature — for what reason, then, does that treatise speak solely of the five faculties of faith and the rest, keen and dull? The answer: it speaks with reference to what is supreme — that is, among the conduct belonging to the five or four aggregates, the five faculties are the most supreme. Further, the five faculties of faith and the rest, being skillful in the expedient means of whatever task is to be accomplished, are capable of swiftly bringing it to completion, surpassing the remaining aggregates, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of. One asks: is there, among the various kinds of sentient beings, a middling faculty? If there is, why does that treatise not speak of it? If there is not, how is one to reconcile this with a certain scripture? As the scripture states: there are sentient beings, born within the world, growing up within the world, some of keen faculty, some of middling faculty, some of dull faculty, and so on, stated at length. There are those who say: there exists no middling faculty. For what reason is this so? The path of seeing is of two kinds — first, the path of one who follows through faith; second, the path of one who follows through the dharma.

The path of cultivation, too, is of two kinds — first, the path of one who follows through faith transformed into resolve; second, the path of one who has arrived at insight. The path of the non-learner, too, is of two kinds — first, the path of liberation depending on occasion; second, the path of liberation not depending on occasion. There being no third path, there exists no middling faculty. One asks: if this is so, then how is one to reconcile this with the scripture? The answer: those who receive the Buddha's own teaching are of three kinds — those who see the truths sooner, those who see the truths in a middling span, and those who see the truths later. Those who see the truths sooner are named keen in faculty; those who see the truths in a middling span are named middling in faculty; those who see the truths later are named dull in faculty. Further, those who receive the Buddha's own teaching are of three kinds — those who see the truths near at hand, those who see the truths after a long time, and those who see the truths neither near nor long. Those who see the truths near at hand are named keen in faculty, exactly as Ājñāta-Kauṇḍinya and the like; those who see the truths after a long time are named dull in faculty, exactly as Subhadra and the like; those who see the truths neither near nor long are named middling in faculty, exactly as Rāṣṭrapāla and the like. There are, further, those who say: there does indeed exist a middling faculty. One asks: if this is so, then why does that treatise not speak of it? The answer: it ought indeed to speak of it, and that it does not is a case whose meaning has been left over for elsewhere. Further, the middling faculty is itself gathered within the keen and the dull — for what reason is this so? When speaking of the dull faculty, the middling faculty is named "keen," since it surpasses the dull faculty; when speaking of the keen faculty, the middling faculty is named "dull," since it falls short of the keen faculty. It is by virtue of this that the Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: the middling faculty ought to be said to be gathered within the keen faculty, since it surpasses the dull faculty; it may, further, be said to be gathered within the dull faculty, since it falls short of the keen faculty. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: the middling faculty may be said to be gathered within the keen or the dull faculty, yet it cannot be said to be gathered within a superior or inferior faculty — for what reason is this so? Because the keen and the dull faculties each possess three grades. How is this known to be so? The Great Awakened One, the solitary-realizer, Śāriputra, and the like, are all gathered within the very lineage of one who follows through the dharma — how, then, could these three kinds of persons possibly all be alike within the very nature of the keen faculty? Since there do indeed exist three grades, it is thereby known that the dull faculty's own nature, too, must admit of three grades. The keen and dull paths each possessing three grades, it is for this reason that the scripture speaks of there being three grades of faculty; and, since a third path cannot be found, the Abhidharma states that there exists no middling faculty. Thus are the scripture's and the treatise's two statements soundly reconciled.

The Saṅgītiparyāya, further, states as follows: painful-and-slow practice, whether through habituation, cultivation, or extensive practice, is capable of fulfilling painful-and-fast practice.

Pleasant-and-slow practice, whether through habituation, cultivation, or extensive practice, is capable of fulfilling pleasant-and-fast practice. One asks: when it speaks of "fulfilling," does this mean fulfilling one's own faculty, or fulfilling one's own freedom from defilement? If it means fulfilling one's own faculty, then painful-and-slow practice, whether through habituation, cultivation, or extensive practice, ought by rights to be capable of fulfilling both kinds of fast practice, and pleasant-and-slow practice, whether through habituation, cultivation, or extensive practice, ought likewise to be capable of fulfilling both kinds of fast practice; if it means fulfilling one's own freedom from defilement, then slow ought to fulfill slow, and fast ought to fulfill fast — for what reason, then, does that treatise speak in this way? The answer: one ought to say that it speaks of fulfilling one's own faculty, yet speaks only of what resembles it, not of what does not resemble it — painful resembling painful, not pleasant; pleasant resembling pleasant, not painful.

One asks: who possesses how many practice-paths? The answer: there is one who possesses only one — namely, one not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement. There is one who possesses two —

namely, one who has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement. The Venerable Saṃghavasu speaks as follows: there is one who possesses all four practice-paths together — namely, one who, in dependence upon a fundamental dhyāna, is sharpening his own faculty, and, at the very moment of abiding in the uninterrupted path, has not yet relinquished the two slow practices while already attaining the two fast practices. The verdict: this ought not to be so held. Were one to hold this, it would then destroy the very category of faculty for that individual — for one whose faculty is thus destroyed would, at that very moment, be both a dull faculty and a keen faculty at once; and it would destroy the very category of individual — for one thus destroyed would, at that very moment, be both one who follows through faith transformed into resolve and one who has arrived at insight, and the like, all at once. Lest there be this very fault, the position stated before is thereby the sound one, according to reason. There is one who possesses one or two; there is none who possesses three or four, since no single individual possesses both a keen and a dull faculty at once. One asks: who makes use of how many practice-paths in accomplishing his own tasks? The answer: there is one who makes use of only one; there is one who makes use of two; there is one who makes use of three; there is one who makes use, together, of all four, though never all at the same single moment. As for one who makes use of only one: this refers to one who makes use solely of painful-and-slow practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the three formless attainments, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use solely of painful-and-fast practice in accomplishing his own tasks —

exactly as one of keen faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the three formless attainments, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use solely of pleasant-and-slow practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, having already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, in dependence upon the four fundamental dhyānas, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use solely of pleasant-and-fast practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of keen faculty, having already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, in dependence upon the four fundamental dhyānas, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa.

As for one who makes use of two: this refers to one who makes use of both painful-and-slow and pleasant-and-slow practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, together with the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of both painful-and-slow and painful-and-fast practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, relying solely upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of both pleasant-and-slow and painful-and-fast practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the first dhyāna and the like, together with the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of both pleasant-and-slow and pleasant-and-fast practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, relying solely upon the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of both painful-and-fast and pleasant-and-fast practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of keen faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, together with the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. As for one who makes use of three: this refers to one who makes use of painful-and-slow, together with pleasant-and-slow and painful-and-fast, practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, together with the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of painful-and-slow, together with painful-and-fast and pleasant-and-fast, practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, and the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of painful-and-slow, together with pleasant-and-slow and pleasant-and-fast, practice — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, together with the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. Or, further, one who makes use of pleasant-and-slow, together with painful-and-fast and pleasant-and-fast, practice in accomplishing his own tasks — exactly as one of dull faculty, in dependence upon the first dhyāna and the like, and the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa. As for one who makes use of all four: this refers to one of dull faculty who, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna and the like, together with the first dhyāna and the like, according to what is fitting, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, sharpens his own faculty, becomes free of defilement, cultivates his remaining virtues, and enters final nirvāṇa.