The Bird That Cannot Find the Sky's Edge

Fifth Aggregate, the Great Elements: the Great-Elements-and-Derivatives Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part Three. On what absorption does the extinction of the four great elements depend? And so on in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to display the great merit of the buddhas' appearance in the world. As the Prajñaptiśāstra says: at the edge of Jambudvīpa, ringing the great ocean, there is a road for a wheel-turning king, one yojana wide — and, if no wheel-turning king appears in the world, this road remains submerged beneath the water, so that none can travel it; but when such a king does appear, the ocean recedes on every side by a full yojana, and this road then appears, smooth and pure, its bed strewn with golden sand, sprinkled of its own accord with sandalwood-scented water — and, whenever the wheel-turning king wishes to make his circuit of this continent, he travels this road escorted by his four armies. Just so, before any buddha appears in the world, there is no one capable of cutting off the afflictions by relying on the fundamental grounds of absorption; but when a buddha, the great Dharma-wheel-turning king endowed with the ten powers, appears in the world, these fundamental grounds appear level and pure, strewn with the sand of the factors of awakening, sprinkled with the water of moral discipline and concentration — and the Buddha, together with countless myriads of followers, relies upon them to advance into the fearless palace of nirvāṇa. Question: how does this passage display the great merit of a buddha's appearing in the world? Answer: without a buddha's appearance, this very question could not even be asked, let alone answered. As, once, when the Buddha was dwelling at Jeta's Grove near the city of Śrāvastī, there was a bhikṣu named Aśvajit, an arhat,

— who, alone in a quiet cell, reflected to himself: where do the four great elements ultimately cease? Wishing to know this, he entered a superior state of absorption, and, with his mind thus concentrated, vanished from Jeta's Grove, suddenly reappearing in the Heaven of the Four Great Kings. Rising from his absorption, he asked the divine assembly there: where do the four great elements ultimately cease? The assembly replied: we do not know where the four great elements ultimately cease — but the Four Great Kings whom we serve are surpassing in wisdom and majestic virtue; perhaps they can answer this, and you should go and ask them. The venerable one then went at once to the Four Kings and asked the same question, and they, too, said they did not know, but together deferred upward to the assembly of the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, who in turn

— deferred to Śakra; Śakra, in turn, deferred upward to the assembly of the Yāma heaven; the assembly of the Yāma heaven deferred to the divine son Suyāma; Suyāma deferred to the assembly of Tuṣita heaven; the assembly of Tuṣita heaven deferred to the divine son Santuṣita; Santuṣita deferred to the assembly of the Nirmāṇarati heaven; the assembly of the Nirmāṇarati heaven deferred to the divine son Sunirmita; Sunirmita deferred to the assembly of the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven; the assembly of the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven deferred to the divine son Vaśavartin; and Vaśavartin, in turn, deferred to the assembly of the Brahma heaven. Thus, having questioned every heaven of the desire realm in turn, the venerable one was still unable to learn where the great elements cease, and, wishing to go to the Brahma world, once more entered a superior state of absorption, and, with his mind thus concentrated, vanished from the Heaven of Mastery over Others' Emanations, reappearing among the assembly of Brahma's own retinue. Rising from his absorption, he asked the same question as before, and the assembly of Brahmā's retinue all replied: we do not know, but there is a Great Brahmā King — this Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the maker, the creator, the father of all beings, self-existent and self-generating, endowed with great majestic virtue, having no equal,

— there being nothing he does not see, does not comprehend, does not know — he alone can surely answer this, and you should go and ask him. The venerable one at once asked where the Great Brahmā might be found, and the assembly of Brahmā's retinue replied: we, too, do not know exactly where the Great Brahmā King dwells — but if you sincerely seek him, wherever you search, a light will appear there. The Venerable Aśvajit accordingly gave rise to a sincere wish that the Great Brahmā King would manifest himself before this assembly — and, at that very moment, the Great Brahmā emitted a radiant light, and transformed himself into the likeness of a youth, his head crowned with five peaks, his form dignified and fine, appearing amid the assembly of Brahmā, following the light. The venerable one stepped forward and asked: Great Sage, where do the four great elements ultimately cease? Brahmā, unable to answer, spoke evasive and deceptive words,

— saying, "Bhikṣu, you should know that I am the Great Brahmā, the sovereign, the maker, the creator, the begetter, the nurturer, the father of all" — this being deceptive verbal karma born of flattery. The venerable one told him, "I did not ask whether you are Brahmā or not — I ask only where the great elements ultimately cease." At this, the Great Brahmā, realizing that this bhikṣu could not be put off by evasive words, took him by both hands and drew him outside the assembly — this being deceptive bodily karma born of flattery. Once outside the assembly, he apologized to the venerable one, saying, "I truly do not know where the great elements cease. Yet my entire retinue believes me to be sovereign and all-creating, with nothing beyond my knowledge or sight — and, were I to admit before my own assembly that I do not know, they would come to hold me in contempt. You yourself have erred, in setting aside the Tathāgata nearby only to travel far and trouble me with this question, gaining nothing for it. You should now quickly return and ask the Buddha instead, and receive and uphold whatever he teaches." Having heard Brahmā defer to the Buddha, Aśvajit, delighted, took his leave and once more entered absorption,

— and, with his mind thus concentrated, vanished from the Brahma world, suddenly reappearing once more within Jeta's Grove. Rising from his absorption, he straightened his robes and, approaching the World-Honored One, bowed in reverence and asked where the four great elements ultimately cease. The World-Honored One then told him the parable of a bird unable to find the edge of the sky, saying: "You are just the same — having traveled as far as Brahmā's own palace, questioning along the way, you have found no boundary, and have returned here just as that bird, finding no edge, must also return. Yet your question was not properly framed to begin with, and any answer following it would likewise depart from the proper form of an answer. If you wish to ask this, you should ask it in this way:

"'The four great elements, together with the long and the short, The fine and the coarse, the pure and the impure — Where are they utterly abandoned, Where do name and form cease without remainder?' Asked in accordance with this form, the question should be answered in this way:

"'Consciousness, without mark, boundless, All-pervading, vast in its own nature, Surpassed by nothing else more vast, By which this alone is outshone and overcome — It is here that the four great elements, together with the long and the short, The fine and the coarse, the pure and the impure, are utterly abandoned, Here that name and form cease without remainder.'" Some say that here the Buddha is speaking of the noble path, since the World-Honored One here uses the term "consciousness." Others say that here the Buddha is speaking of nirvāṇa itself,

— since it speaks of a boundless, markless consciousness. If no buddha had appeared in the world to teach the true Dharma, even the Great Brahmā King himself would remain thoroughly confused on this matter — but, because a buddha did appear and proclaim the true Dharma, even an eight-year-old novice monk can now readily understand it. Were someone to come and ask, "Venerable elder, do you know where the four great elements ultimately cease?", any novice who has merely memorized the Great Elements Aggregate could answer at once, "They cease based on the four absorptions, or on the preparatory stage" — and, were there no buddha in the world, even this much would not exist. Hence a buddha's appearance in the world carries great merit indeed.

On what absorption do the four great elements and derived form depend for their extinction? Answer: on the four absorptions, or on the preparatory stage. "Absorption" may also be called the path, the track, the antidote, or attention — these names carry no difference in meaning; "extinction" may also be called cutting-off, freedom from defilement, exhaustion, or freedom from bondage — these too carry no difference in meaning. In the past, within this school, there were two treatise-masters — one named Timira,

— and the other named Ghoṣavarman. The Venerable Timira held that this passage speaks only of permanent extinction, extinction without remainder, never partial extinction, fractional extinction, or merely representational extinction; that it speaks of extinction accomplished by noble ones, not by ordinary beings; and that it speaks of the function of the noble path specifically, not of the mundane path — for why is this? Because this treatise is established on the basis of the Sūtra of the Seven Dependencies, and that sūtra speaks only of the fundamental grounds of absorption,

— with no mention of an ordinary being, or even a noble one, giving rise to a mundane path based on the fundamental grounds in order to become free of defilement. The Venerable Ghoṣavarman likewise held that this passage speaks only of permanent extinction, extinction without remainder, never partial extinction, fractional extinction, or merely representational extinction,

— yet he held that this passage speaks of extinction by both noble ones and ordinary beings alike. This account accords with reason; the other does not, for why is this? Because this passage speaks generally of extinction accomplished by noble ones as well as by ordinary beings,

— and of the function of both the noble path and the mundane path together. Question: this treatise is established on the basis of the Sūtra of the Seven Dependencies, and that sūtra speaks only of the fundamental grounds, with no mention of an ordinary being, or even a noble one, giving rise to a mundane path based on the fundamental grounds to become free of defilement — how, then, is this to be reconciled? Answer: it is on this very account that the Abhidharma is said to be the mirror, lamp, flame, and light of the sūtras — what the sūtras have not proclaimed, this treatise proclaims; what they have not made manifest, this treatise makes manifest. Where the sūtra leaves something unstated, this treatise leaves nothing unstated; where the sūtra carries a different intent,

— this treatise carries no different intent, but simply states matters more exhaustively within the Abhidharma — and it is on this account that the two accounts, of the sūtra and of this treatise, are both properly reconciled.

As to the great elements and derived form being extinguished based on the four absorptions: this means based on the four dhyānas. As to being extinguished based on the preparatory stage: this means based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna,

— together with the intermediate dhyāna and the preparatory stage of the sphere of infinite space. Here, the preparatory stages of the dhyānas and formless attainments, together with the intermediate dhyāna, are all called "the not-yet-attained," since, though not yet having entered the superior, fundamental ground itself, they are nevertheless capable of presently cutting off affliction. Question: the sūtra speaks only of the name "fundamental" —

— on what basis, then, does this treatise here speak of being based on "the not-yet-attained"? Some say: this passage ought to say "based on the four absorptions, or on what has not yet been attained," and ought not to say merely "based on the not-yet-attained" — but, since it does say "based on," what is its intent? It is simply that this passage speaks twice of the fundamental ground: "based on the four absorptions" names the four dependent absorptions, while "based on the not-yet-attained" merely raises the various dependencies in order to display the various not-yet-attained stages, not to state that this "not-yet-attained" itself serves as the basis — just as one might say, "entering the city, or not yet entering the city," where the word "city" is spoken twice without there being two distinct cities meant; it is the same here. Other masters say: the word "based on" here refers to absorption in general, not only the fundamental grounds, since every one of them is capable of serving as the basis for the path. Yet the seven dependent absorptions are spoken of here with reference to what is superior — the great elements and derived form are bound to five grounds, namely the desire realm and the four dhyānas, and hence it is only upon becoming free of the fourth dhyāna's defilement that their extinction is finally complete. Yet becoming free of that defilement may be based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, or on the four dhyānas themselves, or on the intermediate dhyāna, or on the preparatory stage of the sphere of infinite space — and, if based on the preparatory stage of the sphere of infinite space, becoming free of that defilement is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and only the mundane path, never the noble path, is involved; while, if based on any other ground, becoming free of that defilement belongs only to noble ones, never ordinary beings, and only the noble path, never the mundane path, is involved. It is with reference to the great elements and derived form bound to the fourth dhyāna specifically that this passage speaks of their final extinction, saying "based on the four absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained." As to the great elements and derived form bound to the desire realm: it should be said only that they are extinguished based on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna. As to those bound to the first dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on the first absorption, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first two dhyānas. As to those bound to the second dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on two absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the first two dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first and third dhyānas.

As to those bound to the third dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on three absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the first three dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first and fourth dhyānas. One should understand that, of these, extinction based on the first three dhyānas or the intermediate dhyāna belongs only to noble ones, never ordinary beings, and only the noble path, never the mundane path, is involved; while extinction based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna,

— is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and to both the noble and the mundane path; while extinction based on the preparatory stage of any of the other three dhyānas is likewise common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, yet involves only the mundane path, never the noble path, since none of these upper seven preparatory stages possess a noble path of their own.

On what absorption does resistant contact associated with reflection and investigation depend for its extinction? Answer: on the first absorption, or on the not-yet-attained. As to extinction based on the first absorption: this means based on the first dhyāna. As to extinction based on the not-yet-attained: this means based on the preparatory stages of the first two dhyānas and the intermediate dhyāna. Resistant contact associated with reflection and investigation is bound to two grounds — the desire realm and the first dhyāna — and hence it is only upon becoming free of the first dhyāna's defilement that its extinction is finally complete. Yet becoming free of that defilement may be based on the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the second dhyāna — and, if based on the preparatory stage of the second dhyāna, becoming free of that defilement is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, involving only the mundane path, never the noble path; while, if based on any other ground, it belongs only to noble ones, never ordinary beings, involving only the noble path, never the mundane path. It is with reference to resistant contact associated with reflection and investigation bound to the first dhyāna specifically that this passage speaks of its final extinction, saying "based on the first absorption, or on the not-yet-attained." As to such contact bound to the desire realm: it should be said only that it is extinguished based on the not-yet-attained, since it is extinguished by the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna — and this is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and to both the noble and the mundane path. On what absorption does the pleasure faculty depend for its extinction? Answer: on three absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained. As to extinction based on three absorptions:

— this means based on the first three dhyānas. As to extinction based on the not-yet-attained: this means based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the preparatory stage of the fourth dhyāna. The pleasure faculty is bound to three grounds — the desire realm, the first dhyāna, and the third dhyāna — and hence it is only upon becoming free of the third dhyāna's defilement that its extinction is finally complete. Yet becoming free of that defilement may be based on the first three dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the first or fourth dhyāna — and, if based on the preparatory stage of the fourth dhyāna, becoming free of that defilement is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, involving only the mundane path, never the noble path; while, if based on any other ground, it belongs only to noble ones, never ordinary beings, involving only the noble path, never the mundane path. It is with reference to the pleasure faculty bound to the third dhyāna specifically that this passage speaks of its final extinction, saying "based on three absorptions,

— or on the not-yet-attained." As to the pleasure faculty bound to the desire realm: it should be said only that it is extinguished based on the not-yet-attained, since it is extinguished by the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna. As to the pleasure faculty bound to the first dhyāna: it should be said that it is extinguished based on the first absorption, or on the not-yet-attained, since it is extinguished by the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first two dhyānas. Here, extinction based on the first dhyāna or the intermediate dhyāna belongs only to noble ones, never ordinary beings, involving only the noble path; extinction based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and to both the noble and mundane path; and extinction based on the preparatory stage of the second dhyāna is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, involving only the mundane path, never the noble path.

On what absorption does the joy faculty depend for its extinction? Answer: on two absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained. As to extinction based on two absorptions: this means based on the first two dhyānas. As to extinction based on the not-yet-attained: this means based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, and the preparatory stage of the third dhyāna.

The joy faculty is bound to three grounds — the desire realm and the first two dhyānas — and hence it is only upon becoming free of the second dhyāna's defilement that its extinction is finally complete. Yet becoming free of that defilement may be based on the first two dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the first or third dhyāna — and, if based on the preparatory stage of the third dhyāna, becoming free of that defilement is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, involving only the mundane path; while, if based on any other ground, it belongs only to noble ones, involving only the noble path. It is with reference to the joy faculty bound to the second dhyāna specifically that this passage speaks of its final extinction, saying "based on two absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained." As to the joy faculty bound to the desire realm: it should be said only that it is extinguished based on the not-yet-attained, since it is extinguished by the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna. As to the joy faculty bound to the first dhyāna: it should be said that it is extinguished based on the first absorption, or on the not-yet-attained, since it is extinguished by the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first two dhyānas. Here, extinction based on the first dhyāna or the intermediate dhyāna belongs only to noble ones, involving only the noble path; extinction based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and to both the noble and mundane path;

— and extinction based on the preparatory stage of the second dhyāna is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, involving only the mundane path. On what absorption do the pain faculty, the displeasure faculty, and morsel-nutriment depend for their extinction? Answer: on the not-yet-attained — namely, the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna. Since the pain faculty and the rest are bound solely to the desire realm, their extinction is finally complete the very moment one becomes free of that realm's defilement — and becoming free of that defilement depends solely on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and to both the noble and mundane path.

On what absorption do the equanimity faculty, contact, volition, and consciousness-as-nutriment depend for their extinction? Answer: on seven absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained. As to extinction based on seven absorptions:

— this means based on the four dhyānas together with the first three formless attainments. As to extinction based on the not-yet-attained: this means based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna and the intermediate dhyāna. The equanimity faculty and the rest are bound to nine grounds, extending from the desire realm up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and hence it is only upon becoming free of that highest sphere's defilement that their extinction is finally complete. Yet becoming free of that defilement may be based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, the four dhyānas, or the first three formless attainments — and this belongs only to noble ones, never ordinary beings, involving only the noble path, never the mundane path. It is with reference to the equanimity faculty and the three kinds of nutriment bound to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception specifically that this passage speaks of their final extinction, saying "based on seven absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained." As to those bound to the desire realm: it should be said only that they are extinguished based on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna. As to those bound to the first dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on the first absorption, or on the not-yet-attained,

— since they are extinguished by the first dhyāna, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first two dhyānas. As to those bound to the second dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on two absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the first two dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first and third dhyānas. As to those bound to the third dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on three absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained,

— since they are extinguished by the first three dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, or the preparatory stages of the first and fourth dhyānas. As to those bound to the fourth dhyāna: it should be said that they are extinguished based on four absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the four dhyānas, the intermediate dhyāna, the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the sphere of infinite space. As to those bound to the sphere of infinite space: it should be said that they are extinguished based on five absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the four dhyānas, the sphere of infinite space, the intermediate dhyāna, the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the sphere of infinite consciousness. As to those bound to the sphere of infinite consciousness: it should be said that they are extinguished based on six absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the four dhyānas, the first two formless attainments, the intermediate dhyāna, the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the sphere of nothingness. As to those bound to the sphere of nothingness: it should be said that they are extinguished based on seven absorptions, or on the not-yet-attained, since they are extinguished by the four dhyānas, the first three formless attainments, the intermediate dhyāna, the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna, or the preparatory stage of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Here, extinction based on the seven absorptions or the intermediate dhyāna belongs only to noble ones, involving only the noble path; extinction based on the preparatory stage of the first dhyāna is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, and to both the noble and mundane path; and extinction based on the preparatory stages of the seven higher grounds is common to both noble ones and ordinary beings, involving only the mundane path, never the noble path. Once the four great elements and derived form have been cut off and fully understood, in what fruit should one be said to abide? Answer: the fruit of arhatship, or no fruit at all. As to abiding in the fruit of arhatship: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of the great elements and derived form coincides with abiding in the fruit of the non-learner. As to abiding in no fruit at all: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of the great elements and derived form has occurred, yet who does not yet abide in any fruit — namely, ordinary beings who have already become free of the form realm's defilement, or who, having previously become free of that defilement, enter the certainty of correctness and abide within the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing; or, in the case of one progressing gradually, one who, having become free of the fourth dhyāna's defilement, at the final liberation-path becomes free of the sphere of infinite space's defilement, passing through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths, and so on likewise up through becoming free of the sphere of nothingness's defilement; and, in becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight liberation paths — a person abiding in any of these stages has already cut off and fully understood the great elements and derived form, yet does not yet abide in any of the four fruits of a renunciant. Question: one who has previously become free of the form realm's defilement and, at the moment of entering the certainty of correctness, attains the subsequent-knowledge of the path, has thereby already cut off and fully understood the great elements and derived form — such a person abides in the fruit of non-returning.

Why, then, is this case not mentioned here? Answer: that it ought to be mentioned yet is not should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: this passage speaks only with reference to gradual progress — that is, it speaks of one who, still fully fettered, enters the certainty of correctness, not of one who has already transcended some stages beforehand, and hence this case is not mentioned. Once resistant contact associated with reflection and investigation has been cut off and fully understood, in what fruit should one be said to abide? Answer: the fruit of arhatship, or no fruit at all. As to abiding in the fruit of arhatship: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of this contact coincides with abiding in the fruit of the non-learner. As to abiding in no fruit at all: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of this contact has occurred, yet who does not yet abide in any fruit — namely, ordinary beings who have already become free of the first dhyāna's defilement,

— or who, having previously become free of that defilement, enter the certainty of correctness and abide within the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing; or, in the case of one progressing gradually, one who, at the final liberation-path of becoming free of the first dhyāna's defilement, becomes free of the second dhyāna's defilement, passing through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths, and so on likewise up through becoming free of the sphere of nothingness's defilement; and, in becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight liberation paths — a person abiding in any of these stages has already cut off and fully understood this contact, yet does not yet abide in any of the four fruits. Question: one who has previously become free of the first dhyāna's defilement and, at the moment of entering the certainty of correctness, attains the subsequent-knowledge of the path, has thereby already cut off and fully understood this contact — such a person abides in the fruit of non-returning. Why, then, is this case not mentioned here? Answer: that it ought to be mentioned yet is not should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: this passage speaks only with reference to gradual progress, explained in full as before. Once the pleasure faculty has been cut off and fully understood, in what fruit should one be said to abide? Answer: the fruit of arhatship, or no fruit at all. As to abiding in the fruit of arhatship: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of the pleasure faculty coincides with abiding in the fruit of the non-learner. As to abiding in no fruit at all: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of the pleasure faculty has occurred, yet who does not yet abide in any fruit — namely, ordinary beings who have already become free of the third dhyāna's defilement, or who, having previously become free of that defilement, enter the certainty of correctness and abide within the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing; or, in the case of one progressing gradually, one who, at the final liberation-path of becoming free of the third dhyāna's defilement, becomes free of the fourth dhyāna's defilement, passing through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths, and so on likewise up through becoming free of the sphere of nothingness's defilement; and, in becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight liberation paths — a person abiding in any of these stages has already cut off and fully understood the pleasure faculty, yet does not yet abide in any of the four fruits. Question: one who has previously become free of the third dhyāna's defilement and, at that same moment of entering the certainty of correctness, attains the subsequent-knowledge of the path, has thereby already cut off and fully understood the pleasure faculty — such a person abides in the fruit of non-returning. Why, then, is this case not mentioned here? Answer: that it ought to be mentioned yet is not should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: this passage speaks only with reference to gradual progress, explained in full as before.

Once the joy faculty has been cut off and fully understood, in what fruit should one be said to abide? Answer: the fruit of arhatship, or no fruit at all. As to abiding in the fruit of arhatship: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of the joy faculty coincides with abiding in the fruit of the non-learner. As to no fruit at all: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of the joy faculty has occurred, yet who does not yet abide in any fruit — namely, ordinary beings who have already become free of the second dhyāna's defilement, or who, having previously become free of that defilement, enter the certainty of correctness and abide within the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing; or, in the case of one progressing gradually, one who, at the final liberation-path of becoming free of the second dhyāna's defilement, becomes free of the third dhyāna's defilement, passing through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and nine liberation paths,

— and so on likewise up through becoming free of the sphere of nothingness's defilement; and, in becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, through nine preparatory paths, nine uninterrupted paths, and eight liberation paths — a person abiding in any of these stages has already cut off and fully understood the joy faculty, yet does not yet abide in any of the four fruits. Question: one who has previously become free of the second dhyāna's defilement and, at that same moment of entering the certainty of correctness, attains the subsequent-knowledge of the path, has thereby already cut off and fully understood the joy faculty — such a person abides in the fruit of non-returning. Why, then, is this case not mentioned here? Answer: that it ought to be mentioned yet is not should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Others say: this passage speaks only with reference to gradual progress, explained in full as before. Once the pain faculty, the displeasure faculty, and morsel-nutriment have been cut off and fully understood, in what fruit should one be said to abide? Answer: the fruit of non-returning, or the fruit of arhatship, or no fruit at all. As to abiding in the fruit of non-returning: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of these three coincides with abiding in the trainee's third fruit. As to abiding in the fruit of arhatship: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of these three coincides with abiding in the fruit of the non-learner. As to no fruit at all: this means a person whose extinction and full understanding of these three has occurred, yet who does not yet abide in any fruit — namely, ordinary beings who have already become free of the desire realm's defilement, or who, having previously become free of that defilement, enter the certainty of correctness and abide within the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing — a person abiding in any of these stages

— has already cut off and fully understood these three, yet does not yet abide in any of the four fruits. Here, no gradual stages are mentioned as "no fruit at all," since, at the arising of the final uninterrupted path in becoming free of the desire realm's defilement, these three are already, at that very moment, completely and finally exhausted, and, at the final liberation-path, such a person necessarily already abides in the fruit of non-returning.

Once the equanimity faculty, contact, volition, and consciousness-as-nutriment have been cut off and fully understood, in what fruit should one be said to abide? Answer: the fruit of arhatship. Here, no mention is made

— of "no fruit at all," for why is this? At the arising of the final uninterrupted path in becoming free of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception's defilement, the equanimity faculty and the three kinds of nutriment are already, at that very moment, completely and finally exhausted, and, at the final liberation-path, such a person necessarily already abides in the fruit of arhatship. Other masters, however, offer here a differently intended interpretation, holding that the actual question being asked is: once the great elements and the rest have been cut off and fully understood, under which fruit's own classification should this be subsumed? — and it is on this account that the case of one who first becomes free of the form realm's defilement and, upon later entering the certainty of correctness at the subsequent-knowledge of the path, though thereby attaining the fruit of non-returning, is not mentioned as having the great elements and the rest "cut off and fully understood, abiding in the fruit of non-returning" — since that freedom from bondage is not properly subsumed under the fruit of non-returning at all, the fruit of non-returning being defined only as subsuming what is cut off by insight together with what is cut off by cultivation within the desire realm specifically, as its own defining cut-off fruit. The verdict: the first account is the better one, for why is this? Because this passage asks only in which fruit a given person, having cut off and fully understood the great elements and the rest, should be said to abide — not which fruit's own classification this cutting-off is properly subsumed under.

The sūtra says that nutriment is of four kinds: morsel-nutriment, contact-nutriment, volition-nutriment, and consciousness-nutriment. What is morsel-nutriment? It is what, taking coarse or fine portions as its condition, nourishes the faculties and increases the great elements. What are contact-nutriment, volition-nutriment, and consciousness-nutriment?

They are what, taking contaminated contact, volition, or consciousness as their condition, nourish the faculties and increase the great elements. Here, "nourishing the faculties" indicates dharmas that are nourished; "increasing the great elements" indicates dharmas that are ripening-fruits. Question: the faculties, too, may be said to be "increased," since they too have a ripening-fruit;

— and the great elements, too, may be said to be "nourished," since they too admit of nourishment — why, then, does this passage speak only in the way it does? Answer: both the faculties and the great elements ought properly to be described in both ways at once, and that this passage does not do so should be understood as a matter left with a further, supplementary account. Further, it is in order to adorn the meaning with a variety of wording and a variety of expression, making it easier to understand. Further, it is in order to display two mutually illuminating gateways, stages, summaries, lights, torches, shadows, and beams — just as "nourishing" is applied to the faculties, so too should "nourishing" apply to the great elements; and just as "increasing" is applied to the great elements, so too should "increasing" apply to the faculties — and it is through these paired gateways mutually illuminating one another that the underlying principle is shown to hold throughout, even where the wording, for brevity, makes the meaning only implicit.

Question: as to this nourishing and increasing, does it occur to a dharma already nourished, or to one not yet nourished? If to a dharma already nourished, then what further nourishing does that dharma still require? But if to a dharma not yet nourished, how can what is not yet nourished undergo nourishing at all? Answer: it occurs neither to a dharma already nourished, nor to one not yet nourished. Rather, both the nourished and the not-yet-nourished dharma already exist within the future, and, when the condition for nourishment is met, the not-yet-nourished dharma ceases and the nourished dharma arises; when a condition against nourishment is met, the nourished dharma ceases and the not-yet-nourished dharma arises — and, though no literal transformation occurs, the sense of both nourishing and its absence is equally well established.

Question: is there any contaminated contact, volition, or consciousness that, though it serves as a condition nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements, is not itself nutriment? Answer: there is —

— namely, contact, volition, or consciousness belonging to a different realm, which is capable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. Question: is there any contact, volition, or consciousness belonging to the same realm that, though it serves as a condition nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements, is not itself nutriment? Answer: there is — namely, contact, volition, or consciousness belonging to a different ground, which is capable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. Question: is there any contact, volition, or consciousness belonging to the same ground that, though it serves as a condition nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements, is not itself nutriment?

Answer: there is — namely, undefiled contact, volition, and consciousness, which are capable of nourishing the faculties and increasing the great elements. Question: why is the undefiled not classed as nutriment? Answer: because undefiled dharmas lack the very mark of nutriment. Moreover, a dharma that, when manifest, increases, gathers in, and upholds continued existence may properly be called nutriment — but undefiled dharmas instead diminish, oppose, and dismantle continued existence, and hence are not called nutriment. Moreover, a dharma that, when manifest, perpetuates continued existence, perpetuates old age and death, causing the wheel of birth-and-death to turn without end, may properly be called nutriment — but undefiled dharmas instead sever and halt continued existence, sever and halt old age and death, causing birth-and-death to turn no more, and hence are not called nutriment. Moreover, a dharma that, when manifest, accords with suffering and its origin, accords with old age and death, causing the round of birth-and-death and worldly existence to flow on unceasing, may properly be called nutriment — but undefiled dharmas instead accord with the cessation of suffering and its origin, accord with the cessation of old age and death, causing the round of birth-and-death and worldly existence to flow on no more, and hence are not called nutriment. Moreover, a dharma that, when manifest, is the object of the view of a real self, the object of inverted views, the object of craving, the object of the underlying tendencies, the resting-place upon which greed, hatred, and delusion are established, tainted, poisonous, defiled, turbid, thorny, and hostile, subsumed within existence, falling within the truths of suffering and its origin, may properly be called nutriment — but undefiled dharmas are the object of none of these, are the resting-place of none of these, are neither tainted nor poisonous, neither defiled nor turbid, neither thorny nor hostile, and are not subsumed within existence at all,

— and hence, not falling within the truths of suffering and its origin, they are not called nutriment. Moreover, undefiled dharmas are incapable of nourishing existence to any ultimate completion — though they may nourish it temporarily, this is never final, and hence they are not called nutriment. The Venerable Ghoṣa likewise explains: it is not that undefiled dharmas fail to nourish existence at all — they may nourish it temporarily, yet never to any final completion, and, since they ultimately oppose existence itself, they are not called nutriment. For whatever is properly called nutriment must ultimately be capable of nourishing —

— and, this being asked, the essential substance of nutriment is this: it consists of sixteen real entities, of which thirteen constitute the substance of morsel-nutriment — namely, the eleven kinds of touch together with the smell and taste sense-fields — while contact, volition, and consciousness constitute the substance of the remaining three kinds of nutriment. As to their inclusion within the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements: they are partially included within eleven elements, five sense-fields, and three aggregates. The eleven elements are the seven mind-elements together with the smell, taste, touch, and dharma elements. The five sense-fields are the smell, taste, and touch sense-fields,

— the mind sense-field, and the dharma sense-field. The three aggregates are the aggregates of form, formation, and consciousness. This, then, is the essential substance, own-nature, and characteristic of the four nutriments.

Having explained their essential substance, we should now explain why they are called "nutriment." What is the meaning of "nutriment"? Answer: the sense of drawing forth existence is the sense of nutriment;

— so too are the senses of continuing existence, sustaining existence, generating existence, nourishing existence, and increasing existence. It is because these four factors are capable of drawing forth, continuing, sustaining, generating, nourishing, and increasing existence that they are called "nutriment." Question: if drawing forth existence, and so on up through increasing existence, is the sense of nutriment, then every dharma with outflow ought to be called nutriment — why, then, is only these four so named? The Venerable Pārśva says: only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, has thoroughly and completely realized the true characteristics of all dharmas, and knows their function as well, a knowledge beyond any other's reach — and, whatever dharma bears the mark and function of nutriment, he establishes as such, and whatever does not, he does not so establish. The Venerable Vasumitra explains it this way: this is one of the World-Honored One's own supplementary teachings, spoken briefly, allusively, and dependent on context, since the Buddha teaches the Dharma with regard to what is fitting for those he converts. The Venerable Ghoṣa explains: the Buddha knows that these four factors' capacity to draw forth, continue, sustain, generate, nourish, and increase existence, in their very essential nature, characteristic, and function, is especially strong and proximate, and hence establishes them as "nutriment" — other dharmas being otherwise, and hence not so called. Other masters say: it is because these four factors are especially capable of sustaining every realm, destiny, birth, old age, and death of the world, causing it to continue turning, that they are established as "nutriment" — other dharmas being otherwise. Others say: nutriment carries, in general, two aspects — first, drawing forth a future existence to make it presently manifest; and second, sustaining a presently-existing existence to keep it continuing. Other masters say: nutriment is of three kinds — karma-nutriment, birth-nutriment, and nourishment-nutriment. Karma-nutriment means volition; birth-nutriment means consciousness; and nourishment-nutriment means morsel-food together with contact.