Why the Buddha Renounced Renunciation

One asks: with respect to these four kinds of practice-path, who attains how many, and relinquishes how many? The answer: throughout the stage of an ordinary being, there is neither attainment nor relinquishment, since these four practice-paths are solely undefiled. At the very moment the supreme worldly dharma manifests, one attains one or two, without yet having relinquished any. One asks: here, this treatise does not proceed with reference to an ordinary being, but solely with reference to a noble one. The answer: there is likewise a noble one who, with respect to the four practice-paths, possesses neither attainment nor relinquishment — namely, one abiding in his own self-nature; it is within the stages of advancement and retrogression that the meaning of attainment and relinquishment applies. As for the stage of advancement: if, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, one enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, then, from the moment one abides in the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering up through the dharma-knowledge of the path, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains one; at the moment of the forbearance of class-knowledge of the path, one relinquishes one and attains one. If, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, one enters the fixed state of freedom from birth in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, then, from the moment one abides in the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering up through the dharma-knowledge of the path, there is likewise, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains one; at the moment of the forbearance of class-knowledge of the path, one relinquishes one and attains two. If one enters the fixed state of freedom from birth in dependence upon a higher ground, then, from the moment one abides in the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering up through the dharma-knowledge of the path, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains two; at the moment of the forbearance of class-knowledge of the path, one relinquishes two and attains two. If a stream-enterer proceeds toward the fruit of once-returning, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, five uninterrupted paths, and five paths of liberation, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains one; at the moment of the sixth uninterrupted path, one relinquishes one and attains one. If a once-returner proceeds toward the fruit of non-returning, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, two uninterrupted paths, and two paths of liberation, there is no relinquishment, and one attains one; at the moment of the ninth uninterrupted path, one relinquishes one and attains two. If a non-returner proceeds toward the fruit of arhatship, becoming free of the first dhyāna's own defilement up through the sphere of nothingness' own defilement, then, at the moment of every preparatory, uninterrupted, and liberation path, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains two; becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's own defilement, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, eight uninterrupted paths, and eight paths of liberation, there is likewise, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains two; at the moment of the ninth uninterrupted path, one relinquishes two and attains two. This is spoken of as the stage of becoming free of defilement. If, not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, one who follows through faith transformed into resolve sharpens his own faculty and becomes one who has arrived at insight, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, there is no relinquishment, and one attains one; at the moment of the uninterrupted path, one relinquishes one and attains one. If, already free of the desire realm's own defilement, one who follows through faith transformed into resolve sharpens his own faculty and becomes one who has arrived at insight, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, there is no relinquishment, and one attains two; at the moment of the uninterrupted path, one relinquishes two and attains two. If an arhat liberated depending on occasion sharpens his own faculty and becomes immovable, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, eight uninterrupted paths, and eight paths of liberation, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains two; at the moment of the ninth uninterrupted path, one relinquishes two and attains two. This is spoken of as the stage of transforming one's own faculty. If a noble one not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement gives rise to the various resembling immeasurables, liberations, masteries, and totalities, together with the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, the applications of mindfulness, and the like, then, at the moment of every such virtue, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains one. If a noble one already free of the desire realm's own defilement gives rise to the immeasurables, liberations, masteries, and totalities, the contemplation of impurity, the mindfulness of breathing, the applications of mindfulness, the unimpeded understandings, the concentration free of contention, the knowledge of aspiration, the concentration at the very limit, the three concentrations, the three further concentrations, the mixed cultivation of the dhyānas, and the drawing forth of the five superknowledges, then, at the moment of every preparatory path, five uninterrupted paths, and three paths of liberation, and the like, there is, in every case, no relinquishment, and one attains two. If, entering the attainment of cessation, one's own mind of perception grows ever subtler, there is likewise no relinquishment, and one attains two; at the moment of the most subtle mind of all, there is neither relinquishment nor attainment. All such cases as these are spoken of as the stage of cultivating virtues. As for the stage of retrogression: if an arhat, or a learner already free of the desire realm's own defilement, retrogresses from a superior faculty and abides in an inferior one, he relinquishes two and attains two in every case; a learner not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement, retrogressing from a superior faculty and abiding in an inferior one, relinquishes one and attains one in every case. This is spoken of as the stage of retrogressing in faculty. If an arhat, giving rise to an entanglement of the form or formless realm, retrogresses, he relinquishes two and attains two; giving rise to an entanglement of the desire realm and retrogressing, he relinquishes two and attains one. If a non-returner, already free of the form realm's own defilement and the like, gives rise to an entanglement of the form realm and the like and retrogresses, he relinquishes two and attains nothing; this same non-returner, giving rise to an entanglement of the desire realm and retrogressing, relinquishes two and attains one. If a once-returner retrogresses from the path of the superior fruit, he relinquishes one and attains nothing; retrogressing from the fruit of once-returning itself, he relinquishes one and attains one. If a stream-enterer retrogresses from the path of the superior fruit, he relinquishes one and attains nothing. This is spoken of as the stage of retrogressing from freedom from defilement. The meaning of retrogressing from any of the remaining virtues should be understood according to this same pattern. As the Prajñaptiśāstra states: there are four kinds of individual — there is an individual who, within this visible life, is slow, yet, after the body has broken up, is swift; there is an individual who, within this visible life, is swift, yet, after the body has broken up, is slow; there is an individual who, within this visible life, is slow, and, after the body has broken up, is likewise slow; there is an individual who, within this visible life, is swift, and, after the body has broken up, is likewise swift. One asks: the latter two may well be so, but how can this be true of the former two? A noble one, transmigrating into a further birth, certainly neither retrogresses nor transforms his own faculty; and, taking rebirth within the desire realm, he certainly does not enter the form or formless realms — how, then, can it be said that he is presently slow yet later swift, or presently swift yet later slow? How could there possibly be one who has arrived at insight who, taking a further birth, retrogresses into becoming one who follows through faith transformed into resolve? The answer: that treatise does not speak of transforming one's own faculty or of retrogression, but speaks solely of diligence and indolence — if one is indolent in this present body yet diligent in a later body, this is named "slow within this visible life, yet swift after the body has broken up"; if one is diligent in this present body yet indolent in a later body, this is named "swift within this visible life, yet slow after the body has broken up"; if one is indolent in this present body and likewise indolent in a later body, this is named "slow within this visible life, and likewise slow after the body has broken up"; if one is diligent in this present body and likewise diligent in a later body, this is named "swift within this visible life, and likewise swift after the body has broken up." Such is the very intention of what that treatise states.

As the scripture states: there are four kinds of conduct — first, conduct unable to endure; second, conduct able to endure; third, conduct of subduing; fourth, conduct of tranquility. What is conduct unable to endure? It refers to being unable to endure cold, heat, hunger, thirst, mosquitoes and gnats, wind and sun-exposure, snakes and scorpions and injurious contact, the encroachment and harassment of wicked persons and their unreasonable speech, and the various kinds of pain arising within the body — being incapable of enduring such matters as these is named conduct unable to endure. What is conduct able to endure? It refers to being capable of enduring cold, heat, and the like as stated before — this is named conduct able to endure. What is conduct of subduing? It refers to restraint of the faculties — this is named conduct of subduing. What is conduct of tranquility? It refers to the undefiled path — this is named conduct of tranquility. One asks: do the four practice-paths gather in these four kinds of conduct, or do these four kinds of conduct gather in the four practice-paths? The answer: these four kinds of conduct gather in the four practice-paths; it is not the four practice-paths that gather in these four kinds of conduct. What, then, do they not gather in? This refers to the first three of these.

As the scripture states: there are four kinds of cutting-off — first, painful-and-slow cutting-off; second, painful-and-fast cutting-off; third, pleasant-and-slow cutting-off; fourth, pleasant-and-fast cutting-off. Here, painful-and-slow cutting-off, being both painful and slow, is thereby named inferior; painful-and-fast cutting-off is named inferior solely on account of being painful; pleasant-and-slow cutting-off is named inferior solely on account of being slow; and pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, in the case where it is not genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men, being thereby not vast, is likewise named inferior; the Bhagavān's own cutting-off through practice, being genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men, is alone named sublime. One asks: do the four practice-paths gather in the four kinds of cutting-off, or do the four kinds of cutting-off gather in the four practice-paths? The answer: they gather into one another reciprocally, each according to its own particular matter — that is, painful-and-slow cutting-off is precisely painful-and-slow practice, and so on up through pleasant-and-fast cutting-off being precisely pleasant-and-fast practice, and it is for this reason that, according to each particular matter, they gather into one another reciprocally. There are, further, those who say: the four kinds of cutting-off belong solely to the non-learner, while the four practice-paths pervade both the learner and the non-learner. If one holds this position, then the four practice-paths gather in the four kinds of cutting-off, but the four kinds of cutting-off do not gather in the four practice-paths. What, then, do they not gather in?

This refers to the learner's own four practice-paths. One asks: the noble path is itself sublime, and ought not to be named inferior — as the Prakaraṇapāda states: what is an inferior dharma? It refers to the unwholesome and to the obscured-neutral dharma — for what reason, then, does the scripture speak of some among these four kinds of cutting-off as being named inferior? The answer: inferiority is of two kinds — first, defiled inferiority; second, diminished inferiority. These four kinds of cutting-off, although not possessing defiled inferiority, do possess diminished inferiority. There are those who say:

painful-and-slow cutting-off is gathered within the noble path of one liberated depending on occasion, belonging to the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the three formless attainments; painful-and-fast cutting-off is precisely gathered within the noble path of one liberated not depending on occasion, belonging to the various vehicles of the disciple within these same grounds; pleasant-and-slow cutting-off is gathered within the noble path of one liberated depending on occasion, belonging to the four fundamental dhyānas; among pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, whatever is not genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the noble path of one liberated not depending on occasion, belonging to the various vehicles of the disciple within the four fundamental dhyānas; while, among pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, whatever is genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the noble path of the Buddha-vehicle. One asks: within which category is the solitary-realizer's own noble path gathered? There are those who say: it is gathered within the disciple's own category. There are, further, those who say: it is gathered within the Buddha's own category — for what reason is this so? Because, exactly like the Buddha, he is capable of awakening by himself, without a teacher. There are further teachers who say: the first three kinds of cutting-off should be understood exactly as stated before; among pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, whatever is not genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the solitary-realizer's own noble path, while whatever is genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the Bhagavān's own noble path. One asks: within which category is the fundamental dhyānas' own disciple's noble path of liberation not depending on occasion gathered? There are those who say: it is gathered within the solitary-realizer's own category. There are, further, those who say: it is gathered within the Buddha's own category — for what reason is this so? Because that person's own undefiled faculty is obtained in dependence upon the Buddha. There are those who say as follows: the first three kinds of cutting-off belong to the outside ordinary being; among pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, whatever is not genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the solitary-realizer's own noble path, while whatever is genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the Bhagavān's own noble path. One asks: within which category is the disciple's own noble path gathered? There are those who say: it is gathered within the solitary-realizer's own category. There are, further, those who say: it is gathered within the Buddha's own category — for what reason is this so? Because that person's own undefiled faculty is obtained in dependence upon the Buddha. There are, further, those who say: the first three kinds of cutting-off belong to the various outside paths; among pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, whatever is not genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the disciple's own noble path, while whatever is genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the Bhagavān's own noble path. One asks: within which category is the solitary-realizer's own noble path gathered? There are those who say: it is gathered within the disciple's own category. There are, further, those who say: it is gathered within the Buddha's own category — for what reason is this so? Because, exactly like the Buddha, he is capable of awakening by himself, without a teacher. The verdict: although each of these various statements arises from the disciples' own awakened intention, the genuine meaning is that the four kinds of cutting-off are precisely the four practice-paths, and these four practice-paths — reckoned as two sets of two — gather in the noble path of the three vehicles; yet, among the fourth kind, whatever is not genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the noble path of the disciple and the solitary-realizer alike, while whatever is genuinely capable of displaying vast and abundant benefit to the multitude of gods and men is gathered within the noble path of the Buddha — this pervades both kinds of cutting-off, not solely the fourth, since that scripture does not state that this pertains solely to pleasant-and-fast cutting-off, and since whatever is present within the Buddha's own person is, in every case, sublime. One asks: among the four practice-paths, in dependence upon which practice-path does the Bhagavān enter the fixed state of freedom from birth, attain the fruit, become free of defilement, and exhaust the outflows? In dependence upon which practice-path does the solitary-realizer do so? In dependence upon which practice-path does the disciple do so? The answer: the Bhagavān, in dependence upon pleasant-and-fast practice, enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, attains the fruit, becomes free of defilement, and exhausts the outflows. How is this known to be so? Because the scripture is the very standard here — as the scripture states: Mālā's Mother once came before the Buddha and asked as follows: in dependence upon which practice-path does the Bhagavān realize unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening? The Buddha told Mālā's Mother: every Tathāgata, Arhat, and Perfectly Awakened One realizes unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening solely in dependence upon pleasant-and-fast practice. At that time, Mālā's Mother thereupon raised two objections: the Bhagavān, in the past, on account of six years of austere practice, thereby realized unsurpassed, perfect awakening —

how, then, can it be said that he depends upon pleasant-and-fast practice? The Buddha said: foolish one, it is not on account of those six years of austere practice that I realized the great awakening — having relinquished them, I partook of milk-porridge, and only afterward, relying upon pleasant-and-fast practice, did I realize unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. It is by virtue of this that it is known that the Bhagavān, relying upon pleasant-and-fast practice, enters the path of seeing and the rest, since it is in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna that he enters the fixed state of freedom from birth, and so on up through attaining awakening. A solitary-realizer of the solitary kind is exactly like the Buddha, the Bhagavān; a solitary-realizer of the congregational kind has no fixed reliance, exactly like the various disciples. Among the disciple-vehicle, the Venerable Śāriputra, in dependence upon painful-and-fast practice, entered the fixed state of freedom from birth, attained the fruit, and became free of defilement; in dependence upon pleasant-and-fast practice, he exhausted the outflows — for what reason is this so? Because he, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, entered the fixed state of freedom from birth, attained the fruit, and became free of defilement, and, in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna, exhausted the outflows. The Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana, in dependence upon painful-and-fast practice, entered the fixed state of freedom from birth, attained the fruit, became free of defilement, and exhausted the outflows — for what reason is this so? Because he, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, entered the fixed state of freedom from birth, attained the fruit, and became free of defilement, and, in dependence upon a formless concentration, exhausted the outflows. One asks: for what reason do Śāriputra and Mahāmaudgalyāyana both, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, enter the fixed state of freedom from birth, attain the fruit, and become free of defilement, yet Śāriputra, in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna, attains the fruit of arhatship, while Mahāmaudgalyāyana, in dependence upon a formless concentration, attains the fruit of arhatship? The answer: these two venerable ones are both accomplished disciples who have reached the very ultimate, and thereby certainly and progressively attain the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence, and it is for this reason that they both, in dependence upon the preliminary stage bordering upon the first dhyāna, enter the fixed state of freedom from birth; yet the Venerable Śāriputra, being one of insight-conduct, attains the fruit of arhatship in dependence upon the fourth dhyāna, while the Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana, being one of calm-abiding-conduct, attains the fruit of arhatship in dependence upon a formless concentration. One asks: do every accomplished disciple who has reached the very ultimate certainly and progressively attain the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence, or not? The answer: they all certainly and progressively attain the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence — for what reason is this so? Every accomplished disciple who has reached the very ultimate is one who has followed the Buddha in turning the wheel of the dharma; were they not to progressively attain the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence, how could they be genuinely capable of skillfully explaining the mind that enters, abides in, and emerges from each of these fruits? One asks: as for being genuinely capable of skillfully explaining the mind that enters, abides in, and emerges from the four fruits of the ascetic life,

there is none equal to the Buddha — does the Buddha, then, attain the four fruits of the ascetic life progressively in strict sequence? The answer: with respect to this same meaning, one ought not to challenge the Buddha, since the Buddha, in ages past, when still a bodhisattva, was already capable of skillfully expounding the four fruits of the ascetic life, superior even to Śāriputra abiding in the stage of the non-learner, and it is for this reason that one ought not to challenge the Buddha by appeal to the disciples, since the various disciples, not themselves standing at the very place of realization in every respect, are incapable of freely expounding it for others in every case. There are those who say: not every accomplished disciple who has reached the very ultimate certainly and progressively attains the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence — for what reason is this so? If one, while still in the stage of an ordinary being, has already become free of the desire realm's own defilement, would he, upon encountering the Buddha's own teaching of the essential dharma, first have to retrogress before then proceeding toward the fruit of stream-entry? One asks: if this is so, then how can he be genuinely capable of skillfully expounding the four fruits of the ascetic life? The answer: this ought not to be challenged — exactly as Ānanda, being of dull faculty, although abiding in the learner's own stage, was nonetheless genuinely capable of skillfully expounding the four fruits of the ascetic life, causing measureless hundreds of thousands of sentient beings to become arhats — how much more, then, should one of keen faculty, who leaps over stages to realize and abide within the ground of the non-learner, be incapable of expounding it? The verdict: one ought to say that every accomplished disciple who has reached the very ultimate certainly and progressively attains the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence — not because he is thereby capable of expounding it, but simply because this is the natural pattern of dharma itself. That is, throughout as many Tathāgatas, Arhats, and Perfectly Awakened Ones as there are grains of sand in the Gaṅgā, every one of their own accomplished disciples who has reached the very ultimate progressively realizes the four fruits of the ascetic life in strict sequence — and it is for this reason that, being simply the natural pattern of dharma, this ought not to be raised as a challenge.

As the Bhagavān has said: the arhat who has exhausted the outflows possesses the non-learner's own ten branches — here, what are the non-learner's own ten branches? This refers to the non-learner's own right view, up through right concentration, together with the non-learner's own right liberation and right knowledge. One asks: does the learner's own stage possess right liberation and right knowledge, or not? If it does, then why does this treatise not speak of it here? If it does not, then how is one to reconcile this with a certain scripture? As the scripture states: the Venerable Śāriputra, consoling the elder Anāthapiṇḍika, said: do not be afraid, do not be afraid — it is the unlearned ordinary being who, possessing faithlessness, evil precepts, little learning, stinginess, and evil wisdom, together with wrong view, wrong intention, wrong resolve, wrong liberation, and wrong knowledge, is afraid of falling into the hells, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts; you have already permanently cut off faithlessness, evil precepts, and so on up through wrong liberation and wrong knowledge, and possess faith, precepts, learning, generosity, and wisdom, together with right view, right intention, right resolve, right liberation, and right knowledge, and it is for this reason that you ought not to be afraid. The answer: one ought to say that the learner's own stage does indeed possess right liberation and right knowledge.

One asks: if this is so, then why does this treatise not speak of it here? The answer: "possession" is of two kinds — first, possessing the very substance; second, possessing it as a formal branch.

The learner's own stage, although it does indeed possess the very substance of right liberation and right knowledge, is nonetheless not established with these two as formal branches. One asks: for what reason is the non-learner's own stage established with right liberation and right knowledge as formal branches, while the learner's own stage is not? The answer: it is established in reliance upon what is supreme — that is, among the various dharma, the non-learner's own dharma is supreme, not the learner's own dharma; among individuals, the non-learner is supreme, not the learner — and it is for this reason that, although the learner's own stage does indeed possess these two, they are not established as formal branches there. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that right liberation and right knowledge possess the greatest force and function, being supreme in their own-nature, and free of every fault, and it is for this reason that they are established as formal branches. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that right liberation and right knowledge have already cut off the very root of all existence, and it is for this reason that they are established as formal branches. Further, it is solely the non-learner's own mind that possesses both kinds of liberation together — first, liberation of own-nature; second, liberation of continuity.

and it is for this reason that this same associated resolve and this knowledge are established as formal branches for the non-learner. The two kinds of liberation of mind are not without genuine distinction, and a tetralemma ought to be cast: there is a mind liberated in its own-nature, yet not liberated in its own continuity — namely, a learner's own undefiled mind; there is a mind liberated in its own continuity, yet not liberated in its own-nature — namely, a non-learner's own contaminated mind; there is a mind liberated both in its own-nature and in its own continuity — namely, a non-learner's own undefiled mind; there is a mind liberated neither in its own-nature nor in its own continuity — namely, a learner's own contaminated mind, together with every ordinary being's own mind. Further, the learner's own right liberation and right knowledge, being covered over and impaired by wrong liberation and wrong knowledge, are not established as formal branches. One asks: the learner's own right view, right intention, and the rest are likewise covered over and impaired by wrong view, wrong intention, and the rest — for what reason, then, are these established as formal branches? The answer: the learner's own right view, right intention, and the rest directly cut off wrong view, wrong intention, and the rest, and every affliction, harming the very enemy of affliction, exactly as armor and weapons do, and it is for this reason that they are established as formal branches. One asks: is the learner's own right liberation and right knowledge, then, incapable of harming the various afflictions? The answer: liberation is not itself what directly harms the various afflictions, since it is only once affliction has already been harmed that liberation is thereby attained; and, although right knowledge is indeed capable of harming every affliction abandoned by cultivation, it is incapable of harming what is abandoned by seeing, and it is for this reason that it is not established as a formal branch. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that right liberation and right knowledge possess no opposing dharma whatsoever, and it is for this reason that they are established as formal branches — the opposing dharma being wrong liberation and wrong knowledge. Further, it is solely a non-learner's own mind that is liberated in its entirety, and it is for this reason that this same associated resolve and this knowledge, belonging to that mind, are established as formal branches — unlike a learner's own mind, which is liberated only in part, since a small portion of the affliction abandoned by seeing remains unliberated, this referring to every affliction abandoned by cultivation. Further, it is solely a non-learner's own mind that is liberated from every affliction, and disjoined from every object of that affliction, and it is for this reason that this same associated resolve and this knowledge are established as formal branches — "liberated from every affliction" refers to the afflictions of the five categories; "disjoined from every object" refers to the objects belonging to the five categories. Further, it is solely a non-learner's own mind that is liberated from every obstruction, and remote from every obstruction, and it is for this reason that this same associated resolve and this knowledge are established as formal branches — "liberated from every obstruction" refers to the obstructions of the five categories; "remote from every obstruction" refers to the objects belonging to the five categories. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the vine-like craving is cut off, and every bond severed, and it is for this reason that these same two dharma are established as formal branches. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the topknot of affliction depending upon the peak of existence is cut off, and it is for this reason that these same two dharma are established as formal branches. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the very beard and hair of the three realms' own affliction has already been shorn, and it is for this reason that these same two dharma are established as formal branches. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that liberation is perfectly complete, and it is for this reason that these same two dharma are established as formal branches. Further, it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that his own tranquil ease and bliss are supreme, not impaired by the heat of affliction; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that he experiences a tranquil ease and bliss vast and surpassingly excellent, since the very task to be accomplished has already been accomplished — exactly as a king who has already slain every enemy foe experiences a happiness that is vast and surpassingly excellent; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that every affliction has already been extinguished, and the sage's own mental speech has thereby reached its full completion; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the defiled burden of the aggregates is relinquished, and the burden of the purely pure aggregates attained; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the heated, afflicted elements and sense-fields are relinquished, and the cool, refreshing elements and sense-fields attained; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the very support of the unwholesome roots is relinquished, and the support of the wholesome roots attained; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that affliction's own self-substance is relinquished, and a pure self-substance attained; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that one becomes the very field of virtue for every being of the world — as the Bhagavān has said:

Whoever possesses craving and the rest is exactly like a field overgrown with foul weeds; whereas a field free of craving and the rest — whoever gives to it obtains a great fruit. It is solely within the non-learner's own stage that harming him would incur the very crime of an act of immediate retribution; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that every attachment has been broken, every bond cut off, and every obstruction abandoned; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the four kinds of nourishment and the four stations of consciousness are fully comprehended, and the nine kinds of abode of sentient beings transcended; it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that the manifesting activity of virtue is entirely free of any admixture of impurity, since only sublime conduct is present there, with no evil conduct whatsoever, and only wholesome roots are present, with no unwholesome root whatsoever.

It is by virtue of such various causes and conditions as these that it is solely within the non-learner's own stage that right liberation and right knowledge are established as formal branches. One asks: if the learner's own stage

does indeed possess wrong liberation and wrong knowledge, then how is one to reconcile this with what the scripture states? As it states: elder, do not be afraid, do not be afraid —

you have already permanently cut off faithlessness, evil precepts, and so on up through wrong liberation and wrong knowledge? The answer: wrong liberation and wrong knowledge are of two kinds — first, whatever is capable of causing a sentient being to fall into the three evil destinies, this being precisely what is abandoned by seeing, has already been permanently cut off; second, whatever does not cause a sentient being to fall into the three evil destinies, this being precisely what is abandoned by cultivation, he still possesses.

As the scripture states: the Buddha told Ānanda: Śāriputra is a wise and intelligent monk, genuinely capable of distinguishing, for the elder Anāthapiṇḍika, the ten kinds of meaning belonging to the four branches of stream-entry. One asks: how does he distinguish the ten kinds of meaning belonging to the four branches of stream-entry? The Venerable Pārśva speaks as follows: with respect to each and every branch of stream-entry, he distinguishes it by means of ten meanings — that is, he distinguishes associating with a good person by means of ten meanings, and so on up through distinguishing practice in accordance with the dharma by means of ten meanings. The Venerable Pūrṇa speaks as follows: he distinguishes associating with a good person by means of faith; he distinguishes hearing the true dharma by means of learning; he distinguishes proper mental attention by means of right view; he distinguishes practice in accordance with the dharma by means of the remainder. The Venerable Ghoṣa speaks as follows: he distinguishes associating with a good person by means of faith and precepts; he distinguishes hearing the true dharma by means of learning; he distinguishes proper mental attention by means of right view; he distinguishes practice in accordance with the dharma by means of the remainder. The various Abhidharma treatise-masters say: he distinguishes associating with a good person by means of faith and precepts; he distinguishes hearing the true dharma by means of learning and wisdom; he distinguishes proper mental attention by means of right view; he distinguishes practice in accordance with the dharma by means of the remainder. The Venerable Vasumitra speaks as follows: he distinguishes associating with a good person by means of faith, precepts, and generosity; he distinguishes hearing the true dharma by means of learning and wisdom; he distinguishes proper mental attention by means of right view; he distinguishes practice in accordance with the dharma by means of the remainder. The Great Virtuous One speaks as follows: the Venerable Śāriputra, for the elder Anāthapiṇḍika, genuinely distinguished the four branches of stream-entry, together with the four confirmed purities — the four branches of stream-entry are precisely the distinguishing of the four branches of stream-entry, while the ten kinds of meaning are precisely the distinguishing of the four confirmed purities, that is, distinguishing the four confirmed purities by means of three matters — first, by virtue of own-nature; second, by virtue of what equally arises from it; third, by virtue of what equally flows from it. "By virtue of own-nature" refers to faith and precepts. "By virtue of what equally arises from it" refers to learning, generosity, wisdom, right view, and right intention — by virtue of learning and wisdom, faith equally arises; by virtue of right intention, precepts equally arise; by virtue of generosity, right view, faith, and precepts increase. "By virtue of what equally flows from it" refers to right resolve, right liberation, and right knowledge. One asks: what distinction is there between right resolve and right liberation? The answer: the cause is named right resolve; the fruit is named right liberation. Further, at the time of preparatory effort, it is named right resolve; at the moment of ultimate completion, it is named right liberation. One asks: what distinction is there between the wisdom of learning, right view, and right knowledge? The answer: learning refers to the wisdom accomplished through hearing; reflection refers to the wisdom accomplished through thinking; right view and right knowledge refer to the wisdom accomplished through cultivation — the cause is named right view; the fruit is named right knowledge. The Venerable Vatsa speaks as follows: he distinguishes the four branches of stream-entry, together with their own equally-flowing fruit, by means of ten kinds of meaning — that is, he distinguishes associating with a good person by means of faith, precepts, and generosity; he distinguishes hearing the true dharma by means of learning; he distinguishes proper mental attention by means of right intention and right resolve; he distinguishes practice in accordance with the dharma by means of wisdom and right view; and he distinguishes

their own equally-flowing fruit by means of right liberation and right knowledge. The Venerable Wu speaks as follows: here, the ten kinds of meaning are reduced to five matters, distinguishing the four confirmed purities — first, by virtue of own-nature, this referring to faith and precepts; second, by virtue of resemblance, this referring to generosity and right resolve; third, by virtue of preparatory effort, this referring to learning and wisdom; fourth, by virtue of conformity, this referring to right view and right intention; fifth, by virtue of the fruit, this referring to right liberation and right knowledge. The Venerable Buddhadeva speaks as follows: here, the four branches of stream-entry are distinguished by means of ten kinds of meaning — that is, associating with a good person is distinguished by means of faith, precepts, and generosity; hearing the true dharma is distinguished by means of learning and wisdom; proper mental attention is distinguished by means of right intention; practice in accordance with the dharma is distinguished by means of the remainder.

One asks: for what reason is he named "Arhat"? The answer: since he ought to receive the world's own supreme offerings, he is named Arhat — that is, there exists in the world no pure means of livelihood whatsoever that an arhat ought not to receive. Further, "ari" refers to every affliction; "han" is named "able to slay" — using the sharp sword of wisdom to slay the very bandit of affliction, leaving nothing whatsoever remaining, he is thereby named Arhat. Further, "rahat" is named "birth"; "a" carries the meaning of negation —

and it is by virtue of no further birth that he is named Arhat — since, among the various realms, the various destinies, the various births, and the dharma of birth and death, he is no longer born. Further, "han" is named every evil and unwholesome dharma; the word "rahita" carries the meaning of being remote from — and it is by virtue of being remote from every evil and unwholesome dharma that he is named Arhat. Here, "evil" refers to unwholesome karma; "unwholesome" refers to every affliction, which, obstructing wholesome dharma, is thereby said to be unwholesome, this being contrary to the very meaning of "wholesome." As it is said in a verse:

Remote from evil and the unwholesome, abiding within the supreme meaning, he ought to receive the world's own supreme offerings — and it is for this reason that he is named Arhat. As for "one who has exhausted the outflows": this refers to the outflows being permanently exhausted. One asks: the dharma conforming to the outflows likewise attain permanent exhaustion — for what reason, then, does the treatise speak solely of the exhaustion of the outflows themselves? The answer: it is with the exhaustion of the outflows as the very foremost that this is spoken of, and it should be understood that the exhaustion of the dharma conforming to the outflows is likewise thereby spoken of. Further, the outflows are difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to transcend —

unlike the dharma conforming to them, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of. Further, the outflows possess many faults, being supreme and firmly established, unlike the dharma conforming to them, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of.

Further, the outflows' own very own-nature is cut off, and, once cut off, is no longer possessed, being directly opposed to the noble path, and it is for this reason that their exhaustion alone is spoken of. The various noble paths, upon arising, are directly and precisely opposed to every affliction, not to a contaminated wholesome or neutral-and-unobscured dharma; yet, at the very moment the various noble paths cut off affliction, they likewise, in passing, cut off these same dharma as well,

exactly as a bright lamp, upon being lit, is directly opposed to darkness, not to the oil, the wick, or the vessel — yet, at the very moment it dispels the darkness, it likewise causes the oil to be exhausted, the wick to be scorched, and the vessel to grow hot. One asks: for what reason does the treatise speak solely of the exhaustion of the outflows, and not of the floods, the yokes, and the rest? The answer: the three outflows, coming first, gather in every affliction completely, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of. The floods, the yokes, and the rest, although they too gather in every affliction completely, do not come first; the three fetters and the three unwholesome roots, although they do come first, do not gather in every affliction completely,

and it is for this reason that the arhat is said solely to have exhausted the outflows, not the floods and the rest.

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 non-learner's own knowledge first manifests in the present, none are past, ten are future, and nine are 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, exactly as fully stated before; here, this treatise proceeds solely in reliance upon two of these "firsts" — first, the very first moment of attaining the fruit, this referring to first attaining the fruit of arhatship in dependence upon that ground; second, the very first moment of transforming one's own faculty, this referring to one liberated depending on occasion first sharpening his own faculty and becoming immovable, in dependence upon that ground. As for "the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present": this refers to the knowledge of exhaustion. One asks: a non-learner, too, may give rise to a knowledge and vision that is neither the learner's nor the non-learner's own — this, too, is a non-learner's own knowledge and vision, since it is a knowledge and vision that this same non-learner has given rise to — so why does this treatise not speak of the non-learner's own such knowledge and 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 non-learner's own knowledge and vision, in the strict sense, that is spoken of — not the non-learner's own knowledge and 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 either of these two kinds of 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 "ten are future": this refers to the fact that, at this very first moment, all ten of the non-learner's own branches are fully cultivated as future dharma. As for "nine are present": this refers to the fact that, at that very moment, nine branches manifest in the present, this excluding right view.

since, at this very moment, there is no possibility of it arising. Once it has ceased, it is not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge continuing to manifest in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: nine are both past and present, ten future. Here, "those" refers to those same nine branches; "once ceased" refers to impermanence itself; "not lost" refers to the fact that there exist no three causes and conditions by which that noble path could be lost, exactly as stated before. As for the case of continuing in dependence, referring to what occurs from the second moment onward, continuing, in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection, to give rise to either the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising manifesting in the present: one asks: for what reason does he give rise once again to this ground's own knowledge? The answer: it is out of a mindful gratitude wishing to repay a debt, by virtue of four conditions, exactly as fully stated before. As for "nine 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. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost.

As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: nine are past, ten future, and eight present. Here, the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection refers to the latter three dhyānas; the intermediate dhyāna is not spoken of, its meaning being as stated before. As for "eight are present": this excludes right intention, since that ground possesses no directed thought whatsoever. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: nine are past, ten future, and five present. Here, formless concentration refers to the first three formless attainments; the fourth is not spoken of, its meaning being as stated before. As for "five are present": this excludes right intention, right speech, right action, and right livelihood, since that ground possesses none of these. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, 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: nine are past, ten future, and none present. Here, "entering the attainment of cessation" refers to 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 "nine are past": this refers to the nine branches of the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection first given rise to before. As for "ten are future": this refers to the ten branches cultivated as future at that very first time. As for "none are present": this is because, at that very moment, the noble path does not manifest. Once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own vision first manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: nine are both past and present, ten future. Here, "the non-learner's own vision, first manifesting" refers to the non-learner's own right view. As for "nine are past": this refers to the nine branches of the cluster co-arising with the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection's own first-given-rise-to non-learner's own knowledge. As for "nine are present": this excludes right knowledge, since vision and knowledge do not arise together. As for "ten are future": this refers to the ten branches cultivated by the earlier first knowledge and the present first vision together. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge or vision, either one, manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: ten are both past and future,

nine present. Here, "if it is knowledge" refers to either the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising; "if it is vision" refers to the non-learner's own right view. As for "ten are past": this refers to the ten branches of the cluster co-arising with the earlier first knowledge and first vision together. As for "ten are future": this refers to what is cultivated at that same time. As for "nine are present": at the time of knowledge, vision is excluded; at the time of vision, knowledge is excluded — the remaining nine branches. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the knowledge or the vision, either one, manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: ten are both past and future, eight present. Here, as for "eight are present": this excludes right intention and whichever of knowledge or vision is not present — the remaining eight branches. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge or vision, either one, manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: ten are both past and future, five present. Here, as for "five are present": this excludes right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, and whichever of knowledge or vision is not present — the remaining five branches. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, 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: ten are both past and future, none present. Here, the ten that are both past and future refer to the ten branches first given rise to and cultivated at the time of the earlier first knowledge and first vision. The rest should be understood as stated before.

As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge first manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: none are past, ten future, and eight present. Here, "the non-learner's own knowledge first manifesting in the present" refers to the knowledge of exhaustion. 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 "ten are future": this refers to the fact that, at this very first moment, all ten of the non-learner's own branches are fully cultivated as future dharma. As for "eight are present": this excludes right intention and right view. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge continuing to manifest in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: eight are both past and present, ten future. Here, "the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present" refers to either the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: eight are past, ten future, and five present. Here, "eight are past" refers to the eight branches of the cluster co-arising with the earlier first non-learner's own knowledge belonging to the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, 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, ten future, and none present. Here, "eight are past" refers to the eight branches of the cluster co-arising with the first knowledge. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection: eight are past, ten future, and nine present. Here, "nine are present" refers to what excludes right view. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own vision first manifesting in the present in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection: eight are both past and present, ten future. Here, "the non-learner's own vision first manifesting in the present" refers to the non-learner's own right view. As for "eight are past": this refers to the eight branches of the cluster co-arising with the first knowledge. As for "ten are future": this refers to the ten branches cultivated by the earlier first knowledge and the present first vision together. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of continuing in dependence upon the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection, proceeding onward up through the case of the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection,

the non-learner's own knowledge or vision, either one, manifesting in the present, and the like — all of these should be stated according to what is fitting, in reliance upon the pattern already given before.

As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge first manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: none are past, ten future, and five present. Here, "the non-learner's own knowledge first manifesting in the present" refers to the knowledge of exhaustion. 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 "ten are future": this refers to the fact that, at this very first moment, all ten of the non-learner's own branches are fully cultivated as future dharma.

As for "five are present": this excludes right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, and right view. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge continuing to manifest in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: five are both past and present, ten future. Here, "the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present" refers to either the knowledge of exhaustion or the knowledge of non-arising. As for "ten are future": this refers to the ten branches cultivated at the time of the first knowledge. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, 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: five are past, ten future, and none present. Here, "five are past" refers to the five branches of the cluster co-arising with the first knowledge. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of continuing in dependence upon the concentration possessing both directed thought and sustained reflection, up through the concentration possessing neither, the non-learner's own knowledge manifesting in the present, and the like — all of these should be stated according to what is fitting, in reliance upon the pattern already given before. As for the case of the non-learner's own vision first manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: five are both past and present, ten future. Here, "the non-learner's own vision first manifesting in the present" refers to the non-learner's own right view. As for "five are past": this refers to the five branches of the cluster co-arising with the earlier first knowledge. As for "ten are future": this refers to the ten future branches cultivated by the earlier first knowledge and the present first vision together. Once ceased, they are not lost. As for the case of the non-learner's own knowledge or vision, either one, manifesting in the present in dependence upon a formless concentration: six are past, ten future, and five present. Here, "six are past" refers to the five branches of the cluster co-arising with the earlier first knowledge, together with the five branches of the cluster co-arising with the earlier first vision, making six together. The rest should be understood as stated before, and, 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, continuing onward up through the concentration possessing neither directed thought nor sustained reflection, the non-learner's own knowledge or vision, either one, manifesting in the present, and the like — all of these should be stated according to what is fitting, in reliance upon the pattern already given before.

Here, everything spoken of, both past and future, displays solely what was first given rise to and cultivated, not what was given rise to or cultivated at a later stage; the present is spoken of according to whatever happens to manifest at that particular moment. The non-learner spoken of here likewise pervades every kind of non-learner, not solely one who enters every concentration in strict, unbroken sequence. One asks: for what reason, at the very moment of attaining the learner's own fruit, is vision itself the uninterrupted path and vision itself the path of liberation, while, at the very moment of attaining the non-learner's own fruit, vision is the uninterrupted path but knowledge is the path of liberation? The answer: within the very stage of the non-learner's own fruit, every task that ought to be accomplished has already been accomplished, and preparatory effort has ceased, with no further seeking whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it is not named "vision"; the learner's own fruit is not so, and it is for this reason that it is given the name "vision." One asks: for what reason, within the non-learner's own stage, is knowledge spoken of first and vision spoken of afterward, while, within the learner's own stage, vision alone is spoken of both first and afterward? The answer: within the non-learner's own stage, the knowledge of exhaustion necessarily arises first, and it is for this reason that knowledge is spoken of first; afterward, should he give rise to some further supreme virtue, there is likewise a genuine discernment involved, and it is for this reason that vision is spoken of afterward. Within the learner's own stage, the forbearance of dharma-knowledge of suffering arises first, this being solely vision and not knowledge, and it is for this reason that vision is spoken of first; afterward, the task to be accomplished by the undefiled knowledge has not yet been completed, and, since this discernment has not yet ceased, it too is given the name "vision," and it is for this reason that vision is spoken of afterward as well.