Sorting the Faculties by Trainee, Ripening, and Cutting-Off
Fascicle 144 works through which of the twenty-two faculties belong to the trainee, the one beyond training, or neither, offers nine definitions of these three categories, explains why displeasure alone can never be neutral, defends karmic ripening and the mundane path's own power to cut off affliction, and closes with a precise census of which underlying tendencies are cut off by seeing versus by cultivation. This page carries Ru-Yi's complete translation.
Translation Method
The Chinese source is Xuánzàng's seventh-century translation of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論), preserved in the Taishō canon (T1545, vol. 27) via the CBETA digital edition — public domain text, translated directly from the Chinese. The English wording throughout is Ru-Yi's own, and the reading notes are original, grounded in standard Sarvāstivāda scholarship rather than a specific named commentator's lecture transcript.
Fascicle 144 continues the Faculty Nyāsa (根納息第一之三). Terms established across fascicles 93–143 recur here and are not re-explained at each occurrence.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column below, our English in the right.
1. Sorting Twenty-Two Faculties by Stage of the Path
Fascicle 144 turns to a new organizing question for the twenty-two faculties: of these, how many belong strictly to the trainee, how many to the one beyond training, how many to neither, and how many require further distinction depending on the specific state of the practitioner? The answer sorts them cleanly — two belong exclusively to the trainee, one exclusively to the one beyond training, ten to neither, and nine, including the mind-faculty itself, demanding a genuinely threefold breakdown depending on the practitioner's own current condition.
根蘊第六中根納息第一之三此二十二根。幾學。幾無學。幾非學非無學。答二學。一無學。十非學非無學。九應分別。二學者。謂未知當知根已知根。一無學者。謂具知根。十非學非無學者。謂七色命苦憂根。九應分別者。
Sixth Aggregate, the Faculties: the Faculty Nyāsa, Chapter One, Part Three. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many belong to the trainee, how many to the one beyond training, and how many to neither? Answer: two belong to the trainee, one to the one beyond training, ten to neither, and nine require further distinction. The two belonging to the trainee are the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known, and the faculty of what is already known. The one belonging to the one beyond training is the faculty of complete knowledge. The ten belonging to neither are the seven form-faculties, the life-faculty, the pain-faculty, and the displeasure-faculty. The nine requiring further distinction —
謂意樂喜捨信等五根。此皆應作三分而答。故名應分別。一作學分。二作無學分。三作非學非無學分。分別論者言。此應作分別記。故名應分別。謂意根或學或無學或非學非無學。云何學。謂學作意相應意根。此復云何。謂從苦法智忍。乃至金剛喻定相應意根。云何無學。謂無學作意相應意根。此復云何。謂盡智。無生智。無學正見相應意根。云何非學非無學。謂有漏作意相應意根。
— are the mind-, pleasure-, joy-, and equanimity-faculties, together with the faith-faculty and the remaining four. Each of these must be answered by way of a threefold distinction, and hence they are said to "require distinction": one portion belonging to the trainee, one to the one beyond training, and one to neither. The Vibhajyavādins say that this passage ought to have made this very distinction, and it is for this reason that they, too, are called "the distinguishers." As for the mind-faculty: it may belong to the trainee, to the one beyond training, or to neither. What is meant by belonging to the trainee? The mind-faculty associated with a trainee's own attention. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with attention ranging from suffering-dharma-patient-acceptance up through the vajra-like concentration. What is meant by belonging to the one beyond training? The mind-faculty associated with the attention of one beyond training. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the correct view of one beyond training. What is meant by belonging to neither? The mind-faculty associated with contaminated attention.
That the mind-faculty alone requires a full threefold breakdown — trainee, beyond training, or neither, depending entirely on what kind of attention presently accompanies it — captures something important about mind's own peculiar flexibility among the faculties: unlike the physical senses, permanently fixed to whichever category their possessor happens to occupy, mind moves freely between all three classifications from one moment to the next.
2. The Mind-Faculty's Own Hidden Complexity
A remarkably intricate internal anatomy unfolds within the mind-faculty alone: wholesome mind divides into contaminated (itself split into preparatory, freedom-from-defilement, and birth-attained varieties, with preparatory further divided into hearing-and-reflection-based and cultivation-based) and uncontaminated (trainee or beyond-training); defiled mind divides into what is cut off by seeing or by cultivation; and neutral mind divides into the deportment-related, the artisan-related, the ripening-born, and the transformation-related — an entire miniature taxonomy nested inside what looked, from the outside, like a single simple faculty.
此復云何。謂有三種。何等為三。謂善染污無覆無記。善復有三。
What is this, more precisely? It is of three kinds. What are these three? Wholesome, defiled, and neutral-and-indeterminate. Wholesome, in turn, is of three kinds —
謂加行得。離染得。生得。加行得者。復有三種。謂聞所成。思所成。修所成。聞思所成者。謂不淨觀。持息念。念住等相應。修所成者。謂煗頂忍世第一法。現觀邊世俗智。靜慮無量無色解脫。勝處遍處等相應。離染得者。謂由離染時得。則靜慮無量無色解脫。
— attained through preparatory practice, attained through freedom from defilement, and attained by birth. Attained through preparatory practice is, further, of three kinds — attained through hearing, attained through reflection, and attained through cultivation. Attained through hearing or reflection refers to what is associated with the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the foundations of mindfulness, and the like. Attained through cultivation refers to what is associated with the stages of heat, summit, patient acceptance, and the supreme mundane dharma, the mundane knowledge at the very edge of direct realization, the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the stations of mastery, the totalities, and the like. Attained through freedom from defilement refers to what is obtained at the very moment of becoming free from defilement — namely, what is associated with the dhyānas, immeasurables, formless attainments, liberations, stations of mastery, totalities, and the like.
勝處遍處等相應。生得者。謂生時所得。善染污有二種。謂見所斷。修所斷。無覆無記有四。謂威儀路。工巧處。異熟生。及變化等。通果心如意根。樂根喜根捨根信根精進根念根定根慧根亦爾。
Attained by birth refers to what is obtained at the moment of birth itself. Wholesome and defiled are each of two kinds — cut off by seeing, and cut off by cultivation. Neutral-and-indeterminate is of four kinds — the deportment-related, the artisan-related, ripening-born, and transformation-produced. The mind associated with the penetrating supernormal power is likewise so. The pleasure-, joy-, and equanimity-faculties, and the faith-, diligence-, mindfulness-, concentration-, and wisdom-faculties, are all likewise so —
然有差別。謂信等五。除染無記餘隨所應。問何故此中明意根等。
— yet with this distinction: for the faith-faculty and the remaining four, exclude the defiled and neutral kind, and apply the rest as fitting. Question: why does this passage, in speaking of the mind-faculty and the rest, mention only what is associated with attention, and nothing else?
Discovering an entire nested taxonomy hiding inside a single faculty already established many fascicles earlier is a reminder of how this tradition's own classificatory ambition never really stops: no category, however settled it may have seemed when first introduced, is ever treated as too basic to eventually receive its own further, internal subdivision.
3. Why Only Attention Gets Named
A pointed question asks why, among all the many mental factors that could accompany the mind-faculty, the treatise specifically names only its association with attention — answered through a cascade of explanations locating attention's own unique conducing power: exactly as, among the formations dissociated from mind, only the characteristic of arising itself is singled out as conducive to a dharma's own coming-to-be, attention alone, among mind's many companions, carries the specific mark of alerting and drawing the mind toward its object.
唯說作意相應非餘。答彼作論者意欲爾故。乃至廣說。脇尊者曰。
Answer: it is simply the intention of the treatise's own author, that this order be followed — and so on, in full. The Venerable Pārśva says:
此不應問一切有疑。說餘相應亦生疑故。但不違理隨說無過。有說。作意順生心勝故。謂相應法中順生心者唯作意勝。如不相應中順生法者唯有生相。是故偏說。有說。作意是警覺相。是牽引相。
this ought not to be asked at all, since every possible associated dharma equally invites the same doubt — so long as this does not contradict the proper principle, no fault follows from whatever is said. Others say: attention is superior in conducing to the arising of mind, since, among the dharmas associated with mind, only attention is superior in this specific conducing function, exactly as, among formations dissociated from mind, only the characteristic of arising itself is superior in conducing to a dharma's own coming-to-be — and hence attention alone is singled out for mention. Others say: attention carries the mark of alerting, and the mark of drawing forth,
令意根等取所緣勝。是故偏說。有說。作意能生諸法勝於餘法。是故偏說。
causing the mind-faculty and the rest to grasp their object in a superior way, and hence it alone is singled out for mention. Others say: attention is capable of generating every dharma in a way superior to every other dharma, and hence it alone is singled out for mention.
The parallel drawn between attention among mental factors and the mere characteristic of arising among dissociated formations is a small but elegant piece of structural reasoning: in both cases, an entire class of otherwise equal-seeming companions turns out to contain one member specifically responsible for setting the whole process into motion, and it is this initiating role, rather than any greater intrinsic importance, that earns it special mention.
4. Does a Trainee's Faculty Always Belong to a Trainee? A Four-Cornered Answer
An intricate tetralemma investigates whether a faculty classified as belonging to "the trainee" in general is always actually possessed by any given trainee-person — the answer decisively no, since one following faith does not possess the specific faculties belonging to one following the Dharma, one abiding at an early stage of the path does not possess the faculties of a later stage, and so on through an exhaustive catalog of trainee sub-types, each possessing only its own particular slice of the trainee's full faculty-repertoire.
已分別諸根學等自性。雜無雜相今當說。諸根學彼是學者根耶。答應作四句。有根學彼非學者根。謂學根學者不成就。此復云何。謂隨信行不成就隨法行諸根。隨法行不成就隨信行諸根。信勝解不成就見至諸根。見至不成就信勝解諸根。退法姓學不成就五姓學諸根。乃至不動法姓學不成就五姓學諸根。佛乘姓學不成就餘二乘姓學諸根。乃至聲聞乘姓學不成就餘二乘姓學諸根。住苦法智忍位。
Having now distinguished the self-nature of the faculties with respect to trainee-status and the rest, we should next explain their mutual mixing and non-mixing. Question: whatever faculty belongs to the trainee — does it also belong to a trainee-person? Answer: this should be worked out as a tetralemma. There is a faculty belonging to the trainee that does not belong to a trainee-person — that is, a trainee's own faculty that the trainee himself does not possess. What is this, more precisely? It is the faculties belonging to one following the Dharma that one following faith does not possess, and the faculties belonging to one following faith that one following the Dharma does not possess; the faculties belonging to one resolved-through-faith that one attained-through-vision does not possess, and the faculties belonging to one attained-through-vision that one resolved-through-faith does not possess; the faculties belonging to the trainee-lineage of the retrogressible type that the trainee-lineage of the other five types does not possess, up through the faculties belonging to the trainee-lineage of the unshakable type that the lineage of the other five types does not possess; the faculties belonging to the Buddha-vehicle trainee-lineage that the other two vehicle-lineages do not possess, up through the faculties belonging to the śrāvaka-vehicle trainee-lineage that the other two vehicle-lineages do not possess; one abiding in the stage of suffering-dharma-patient-acceptance,
不成就上學位諸根。乃至住道類智忍位。不成就上學位諸根。住學三果未上進位。不成就下上學位諸根。住上進位如應廣說。有是學者根彼根非學。謂非學非無學根。學者成就。此復云何。謂諸學者生欲界。已得眼根不失。及生色界。彼成就眼根。已得者。謂鉢羅奢佉位等。不失者。謂不失壞。如眼根。耳鼻舌根亦爾。生欲色界彼成就身根。女成就女根。男成就男根。生遍淨及下。成就樂根。
does not possess the faculties belonging to a higher trainee-stage, up through one abiding in the stage of path-class patient-acceptance not possessing the faculties belonging to a higher trainee-stage; one abiding at any of the three trainee-fruits, not yet progressing further, does not possess the faculties belonging to either a lower or a higher trainee-stage; one abiding in the stage of further progress possesses the faculties accordingly, explained fully as fitting. There is a faculty belonging to a trainee-person that is not itself a trainee-faculty — that is, a faculty that is neither trainee nor beyond training, which the trainee-person nonetheless possesses. What is this, more precisely? It is that trainees, born in the desire realm, having already obtained the eye-faculty without losing it, and, upon rebirth in the form realm, still possess the eye-faculty. "Already obtained" refers to the stage of the praśākhā and the like; "without losing" means not having been destroyed or lost. The ear-, nose-, and tongue-faculties are likewise so. Born in the desire or form realm, one possesses the body-faculty; a female possesses the female faculty; a male possesses the male faculty; born in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven or below, one possesses the pleasure-faculty;
生欲界成就苦根。生極光淨及下。成就喜根。未離欲染。成就憂根。意命捨根一切成就。生欲界未得無色界善心。彼成就欲色界信等五根。若得無色界善心。成就三界信等五根。生色界未得無色界善心。彼成就色界信等五根。若得無色界善心。成就色無色界信等五根。生無色界彼成就無色界信等五根。有根學彼亦學者根。謂學根學者成就。此復云何。謂隨信行成就隨信行諸根。隨法行成就隨法行諸根。信勝解成就信勝解諸根。見至成就見至諸根。退法姓學成就退法姓學諸根。乃至不動法姓學成就不動法姓學諸根。佛乘姓學成就佛乘姓學諸根。乃至聲聞乘姓學成就聲聞乘姓學諸根。住苦法智忍位成就苦法智忍位諸根。乃至住道類智忍位成就一切見道諸根。住學三果未上進位。各成就所住果所攝諸根。住上進位各成就所得果。及勝果道所攝諸根。有根非學彼亦非學者根。謂無學根及非學非無學根。學者不成就。此復云何。謂諸學者。定不成就無學諸根。及有非學非無學根。學者不成就。謂諸學者生欲界不得眼根。設得。而失。及生無色界彼不成就眼根。不得者。謂未至鉢羅奢佉位等。設得而失者。謂已失壞。如眼根。耳鼻舌根亦爾。生無色界彼不成就身根。女不成就男根。男不成就女根。有俱不成。謂生色無色界。及生欲界。或本不得。或已得漸命終等捨。生遍淨上不成就樂根。生色無色界不成就苦根。生極光淨上不成就喜根。已離欲染不成就憂根。生欲界未得無色界善心。彼不成就無色界信等五根。生色界未得無色界善心。彼不成就欲無色界信等五根。生無色界彼不成就。欲色界信等五根。
born in the desire realm, one possesses the pain-faculty; born in the Ābhāsvara heaven or below, one possesses the joy-faculty; not yet free of desire's own defilement, one possesses the displeasure-faculty; the mind-, life-, and equanimity-faculties are possessed by all alike. Born in the desire realm, not yet having attained a form-realm wholesome mind, one possesses the desire- and form-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four; having attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one possesses the faith-faculty and the remaining four belonging to all three realms. Born in the form realm, not yet having attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one possesses the form-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four; having attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one possesses the faith-faculty and the remaining four belonging to both the form and formless realms. Born in the formless realm, one possesses the formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four. There is a faculty that is both a trainee-faculty and belongs to a trainee-person — that is, a trainee's own faculty that the trainee himself possesses. What is this, more precisely? It is that one following faith possesses the faculties belonging to one following faith; one following the Dharma possesses the faculties belonging to one following the Dharma; one resolved-through-faith possesses the faculties belonging to one resolved-through-faith; one attained-through-vision possesses the faculties belonging to one attained-through-vision; the retrogressible-type trainee-lineage possesses the faculties belonging to the retrogressible-type trainee-lineage, up through the unshakable-type trainee-lineage possessing the faculties belonging to the unshakable-type trainee-lineage; the Buddha-vehicle trainee-lineage possesses the faculties belonging to the Buddha-vehicle trainee-lineage, up through the śrāvaka-vehicle trainee-lineage possessing the faculties belonging to the śrāvaka-vehicle trainee-lineage; one abiding in the stage of suffering-dharma-patient-acceptance possesses the faculties belonging to that very stage, up through one abiding in the stage of path-class patient-acceptance possessing every faculty belonging to the entire path of seeing; one abiding at any of the three trainee-fruits, not yet progressing further, possesses whatever faculties are subsumed under the fruit presently abided in; one abiding in the stage of further progress possesses whatever faculties are subsumed under both the fruit already attained and the path leading to the superior fruit. There is a faculty that is neither a trainee-faculty nor belongs to a trainee-person — that is, faculties belonging to the one beyond training, or to neither, which a trainee-person does not possess. What is this, more precisely? It is that trainees certainly do not possess the faculties belonging to the one beyond training; and, as for faculties belonging to neither which a trainee-person does not possess, it is that trainees, born in the desire realm, may not obtain the eye-faculty at all, or, having obtained it, may lose it, and, upon rebirth in the formless realm, do not possess the eye-faculty. "Not obtained" refers to not yet having reached the stage of the praśākhā and the like; "having obtained it, yet lost it" means it has already been destroyed or lost. The ear-, nose-, and tongue-faculties are likewise so. Born in the formless realm, one does not possess the body-faculty; a female does not possess the male faculty; a male does not possess the female faculty; there are cases where neither is possessed at all — that is, born in the form or formless realm, or, born in the desire realm, either never having obtained them from the outset, or having obtained them and then gradually given them up at the approach of death, and so on. Born in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven or above, one does not possess the pleasure-faculty; born in the form or formless realm, one does not possess the pain-faculty; born in the Ābhāsvara heaven or above, one does not possess the joy-faculty; already free of desire's own defilement, one does not possess the displeasure-faculty. Born in the desire realm, not yet having attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one does not possess the formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four; born in the form realm, not yet having attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one does not possess the desire- and formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four; born in the formless realm, one does not possess the desire- and form-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four.
That even within the single broad category "trainee," no individual practitioner actually possesses every faculty that category as a whole comprises is a valuable corrective to treating any of this tradition's classifications as describing a single uniform individual: a general category can be real and useful even when no single member of it ever instantiates the category in its complete, generic form.
5. The Same Puzzle for the One Beyond Training
The identical four-cornered analysis is now run for the one beyond training, with the very same result: the fixed-time-liberated arhat does not possess the faculties specific to the any-time-liberated arhat, the Buddha does not possess the faculties specific to the śrāvaka or solitary-realized buddha, and so on — confirming that "beyond training," no less than "trainee," names a broad category no single individual ever fully embodies in every one of its possible variations at once.
諸根無學。彼是無學者根耶。答應作四句。有根無學彼非無學者根。謂無學根。無學者不成就。此復云何。謂時解脫。不成就不時解脫諸根。不時解脫。不成就時解脫諸根。退法不成就五種諸根。
Whatever faculty belongs to the one beyond training — does it also belong to a one-beyond-training-person? Answer: this should likewise be worked out as a tetralemma. There is a faculty belonging to the one beyond training that does not belong to a one-beyond-training-person — that is, faculties belonging to the one beyond training which the one-beyond-training-person himself does not possess. What is this, more precisely? It is that one liberated at the fixed time does not possess the faculties belonging to one liberated at any time; one liberated at any time does not possess the faculties belonging to one liberated at the fixed time; the retrogressible type does not possess the faculties belonging to the other five types,
乃至不動法不成就五種諸根。佛不成就獨覺聲聞諸根。獨覺不成就佛聲聞諸根。聲聞不成就佛獨覺諸根。有是無學者根彼根非無學。
up through the unshakable type not possessing the faculties belonging to the other five types; the Buddha does not possess the faculties belonging to the solitary-realized buddha or the śrāvaka; the solitary-realized buddha does not possess the faculties belonging to the Buddha or the śrāvaka; the śrāvaka does not possess the faculties belonging to the Buddha or the solitary-realized buddha. There is a faculty belonging to a one-beyond-training-person that is not itself a faculty belonging to the one beyond training —
謂非學非無學根。無學者成就。此復云何。謂無學者生欲界。已得眼根不失。及生色界彼成就眼根。如眼根。耳鼻舌根亦爾。生欲色界彼成就身根。女成就女根。男成就男根。生遍淨及下。成就樂根。生欲界成就苦根。生極光淨及下。成就喜根。意命捨根一切成就。生欲界彼成就。三界信等五根。生色界彼成就色無色界信等五根。生無色界彼成就無色界信等五根。有根無學彼亦無學者根。謂無學根。無學者成就。此復云何。謂時解脫成就時解脫諸根。不時解脫成就不時解脫諸根。退法成就退法諸根。乃至不動法成就不動法諸根。佛成就佛諸根。獨覺成就獨覺諸根。聲聞成就聲聞諸根。
that is, a faculty belonging to neither, which the one-beyond-training-person nonetheless possesses. What is this, more precisely? It is that ones beyond training, born in the desire realm, having already obtained the eye-faculty without losing it, and, upon rebirth in the form realm, still possess the eye-faculty; the ear-, nose-, and tongue-faculties are likewise so. Born in the desire or form realm, one possesses the body-faculty; a female possesses the female faculty; a male possesses the male faculty; born in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven or below, one possesses the pleasure-faculty; born in the desire realm, one possesses the pain-faculty; born in the Ābhāsvara heaven or below, one possesses the joy-faculty; the mind-, life-, and equanimity-faculties are possessed by all alike. Born in the desire realm, one possesses the faith-faculty and the remaining four belonging to all three realms; born in the form realm, one possesses the faith-faculty and the remaining four belonging to both the form and formless realms; born in the formless realm, one possesses the formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four. There is a faculty that is both a faculty belonging to the one beyond training and belongs to a one-beyond-training-person — that is, a faculty of the one beyond training which the one-beyond-training-person himself possesses. What is this, more precisely? It is that one liberated at the fixed time possesses the faculties belonging to one liberated at the fixed time; one liberated at any time possesses the faculties belonging to one liberated at any time; the retrogressible type possesses the faculties belonging to the retrogressible type, up through the unshakable type possessing the faculties belonging to the unshakable type; the Buddha possesses the faculties belonging to the Buddha; the solitary-realized buddha possesses the faculties belonging to the solitary-realized buddha; the śrāvaka possesses the faculties belonging to the śrāvaka.
有根非無學彼亦非無學者根。謂學根及非學非無學根。無學者不成就。此復云何。謂無學者定不成就學諸根。及有非學非無學根。無學者不成就。謂無學者生欲界。不得眼根。設得而失。及生無色界彼不成就眼根。如眼根。耳鼻舌根亦爾。生無色界彼不成就身根。
There is a faculty that is neither a faculty belonging to the one beyond training nor belongs to a one-beyond-training-person — that is, faculties belonging to the trainee, or to neither, which a one-beyond-training-person does not possess. What is this, more precisely? It is that ones beyond training certainly do not possess the faculties belonging to the trainee; and, as for faculties belonging to neither which a one-beyond-training-person does not possess, it is that ones beyond training, born in the desire realm, may not obtain the eye-faculty at all, or, having obtained it, may lose it, and, upon rebirth in the formless realm, do not possess the eye-faculty; the ear-, nose-, and tongue-faculties are likewise so. Born in the formless realm, one does not possess the body-faculty;
女不成就男根。男不成就女根。有俱不成就。謂生色無色界。及生欲界。或本不得。或已得而失。生遍淨上彼不成就樂根。生色無色界彼不成就苦根。生極光淨上彼不成就喜根。定不成就憂根。生色界彼不成就欲界信等五根。生無色界彼不成就欲色界信等五根。
a female does not possess the male faculty, a male does not possess the female faculty; there are cases where neither is possessed at all — that is, born in the form or formless realm, or in the desire realm, either never having obtained them, or having obtained and then lost them. Born in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven or above, one does not possess the pleasure-faculty; born in the form or formless realm, one does not possess the pain-faculty; born in the Ābhāsvara heaven or above, one does not possess the joy-faculty; the displeasure-faculty is certainly not possessed at all. Born in the form realm, one does not possess the desire-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four; born in the formless realm, one does not possess the desire- and form-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four.
Running the exact same tetralemma a second time, for an entirely different category, and finding the identical structural result, suggests this is not a peculiarity of the trainee stage specifically but a general fact about how this tradition's own broad classifications relate to the individuals they describe: genuine diversity persists even at the very summit of the path, where one might have expected uniformity to finally take over.
6. And for the Ordinary Being Who Is Neither
The same rigorous four-cornered check is applied, finally, to the category "neither trainee nor beyond training" — that is, the ordinary being — with one genuine simplification: since possessing trainee or beyond-training dharmas is precisely what defines those two categories, anyone properly called "neither" necessarily possesses only faculties belonging to neither, collapsing what could have been a full tetralemma into a cleaner, more direct correspondence, even while individual ordinary beings still vary enormously among themselves in exactly which of these shared faculties they happen to possess.
諸根非學非無學。彼是非學非無學者根耶。答諸非學非無學者根。
Whatever faculty is neither trainee nor beyond training — does it also belong to a person who is neither trainee nor beyond training? Answer: every faculty belonging to neither trainee nor beyond training
彼根非學非無學。所以者何。以成就學法即名學者。成就無學法即名無學者。若不成就學無學法。名非學非無學者。即是異生。彼所成就根唯是非學非無學故。有根非學非無學彼非非學非無學者根。
does indeed belong to a person who is neither trainee nor beyond training — for why is this? Whoever possesses a trainee's own dharmas is thereby called a trainee; whoever possesses the dharmas of one beyond training is thereby called one beyond training; and whoever possesses neither the trainee's own dharmas nor those of one beyond training is called a person who is neither trainee nor beyond training — namely, precisely an ordinary being — and, since the faculties such a person possesses are exclusively those belonging to neither trainee nor beyond training, this holds necessarily. There is a faculty belonging to neither trainee nor beyond training which does not belong to a person who is neither trainee nor beyond training —
謂非學非無學根。非學非無學者不成就。此復云何。謂諸異生生欲界未得眼根。設得而失。及生無色界彼不成就眼根。如眼根。耳鼻舌根亦爾。生無色界彼不成就身根。女不成就男根。男不成就女根。有俱不成。謂生色無色界。及生欲界。或本不得。或已得而失。生遍淨上不成就樂根。生色無色界不成就苦根。生極光淨上不成就喜根。離欲界染不成就憂根。斷善根者不成就三界信等五根。
that is, faculties belonging to neither trainee nor beyond training, which a person who is neither trainee nor beyond training does not possess. What is this, more precisely? It is that ordinary beings, born in the desire realm, may not have obtained the eye-faculty at all, or, having obtained it, may have lost it, and, upon rebirth in the formless realm, do not possess the eye-faculty; the ear-, nose-, and tongue-faculties are likewise so. Born in the formless realm, one does not possess the body-faculty; a female does not possess the male faculty, a male does not possess the female faculty; there are cases where neither is possessed at all — that is, born in the form or formless realm, or in the desire realm, either never having obtained them, or having obtained and then lost them. Born in the Śubhakṛtsna heaven or above, one does not possess the pleasure-faculty; born in the form or formless realm, one does not possess the pain-faculty; born in the Ābhāsvara heaven or above, one does not possess the joy-faculty; already free of the desire realm's own defilement, one does not possess the displeasure-faculty. One who has cut off wholesome roots does not possess the faith-faculty and the remaining four belonging to any of the three realms.
生欲界不斷善根。若未得色界善心。彼不成就色無色界信等五根。
Born in the desire realm, not having cut off wholesome roots, if one has not yet attained a form-realm wholesome mind, one does not possess the form- or formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four;
若得色界善心。未得無色界善心。彼不成就無色界信等五根。生色界若未得無色界善心彼不成就欲無色界信等五根。若得無色界善心。彼不成就欲界信等五根。生無色界彼不成就欲色界信等五根。
if one has attained a form-realm wholesome mind, but not yet a formless-realm wholesome mind, one does not possess the formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four. Born in the form realm, if one has not yet attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one does not possess the desire- or formless-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four; if one has attained a formless-realm wholesome mind, one does not possess the desire-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four. Born in the formless realm, one does not possess the desire- or form-realm faith-faculty and the remaining four.
That the ordinary-being category alone yields a cleaner correspondence than either the trainee or the beyond-training category is a small logical curiosity worth noticing: it is precisely because "neither" is defined by exclusion rather than by positive possession of some special path-related dharma that its own relationship to individual faculties turns out simpler than either of the two categories built around active spiritual attainment.
7. Nine Ways to Define 'Trainee,' 'Beyond Training,' and 'Neither'
Having exhaustively mapped which faculties belong to which stage, the treatise turns to defining the three stages themselves, offering no fewer than nine distinct, overlapping formulations — the path of non-craving, non-hatred, or non-delusion still being trained in versus already completed; cutting off the seeking of desire and existence while fulfilling the seeking of the holy life; a basis still clung to by the attainment of affliction versus one no longer so clung to; and, finally, the technical roster of five, two, seven, one, eighteen, and nine kinds of individual whose own continuum determines which uncontaminated dharmas count as trainee or beyond-training.
已分別諸根學等。彼學等義今當說。問云何名學無學非學非無學耶。答以無貪道為斷貪故。而學此道所攝法名學。以無貪道為斷貪故。而不學已學故。此道所攝法名無學。與二相違名非學非無學。
Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to trainee-status and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of trainee-status and the rest themselves. Question: why is something called "trainee," "beyond training," or "neither trainee nor beyond training"? Answer: because the path of non-craving exists in order to cut off craving, and one still trains in this path, it is subsumed under this path and called "trainee"; because the path of non-craving exists in order to cut off craving, yet, having already trained in it, one no longer trains further, this path is subsumed under and called "beyond training"; and whatever is contrary to both is called "neither trainee nor beyond training."
復次以無瞋道為斷瞋故。而學此道所攝法名學。以無瞋道為斷瞋故。而不學已學故。此道所攝法名無學。與二相違名非學非無學。
Further, because the path of non-hatred exists in order to cut off hatred, and one still trains in this path, it is subsumed under this path and called "trainee"; because the path of non-hatred exists in order to cut off hatred, yet, having already trained in it, one no longer trains further, this path is subsumed under and called "beyond training"; and whatever is contrary to both is called "neither trainee nor beyond training."
復次以無癡道為斷癡故。而學此道所攝法名學。以無癡道為斷癡故。而不學已學。故此道所攝法名無學。與二相違。名非學非無學。復次以無愛道為斷愛故而學。然非愛事。此道所攝法名學。以無愛道為斷愛故而學者。此則遮無學道。然非愛事者。此則遮世俗道。以無愛道為斷愛故。而不學已學故。然非愛事。此道所攝法名無學。以無愛道為斷愛故。而不學已學故者。此則遮學道。然非愛事者。此則遮世俗道。與二相違名非學非無學。復次若道為斷二求滿一求故而學。此道所攝法名學。為斷二求者。謂欲求有求。滿一求者。謂梵行求。若道為斷二求滿一求故。而不學已學故。此道所攝法名無學。與二相違名非學非無學。復次若道為斷煩惱。修諦現觀故而學。此道所攝法名學。若道為斷煩惱。修諦現觀故。而不學已學故。此道所攝法名無學。與二相違名非學非無學。復次若所依中。有煩惱得隨縛。有無漏得隨逐。彼是學若所依中。無煩惱得隨縛。有無漏得隨逐。彼是無學。與二相違名非學非無學。復次若所依中。有愛隨縛。有無漏得。彼是學。若所依中。無愛隨縛。有無漏得。彼是無學。與二相違名非學非無學。復次若法見道修道所攝是學。若法無學道所攝是無學。與二相違是非學非無學。見地修地無學地說亦爾。復次若法未知當知根。已知根所攝是學。若法具知根所攝是無學。與二相違是非學非無學。復次五種補特伽羅相續中。諸無漏法是學。五種補特伽羅者。謂隨信行。隨法行。信勝解。見至。身證。二種補特伽羅相續中。諸無漏法是無學。二種補特伽羅者。謂慧解脫。俱解脫。與二相違是非學非無學。復次七種補特伽羅相續中。諸無漏法是學。七種補特伽羅者。謂四向前三果。一種補特伽羅相續中。諸無漏法是無學。一種補特伽羅者。謂阿羅漢果。與二相違名非學非無學。復次十八種補特伽羅相續中。
Further, because the path of non-delusion exists in order to cut off delusion, and one still trains in this path, it is subsumed under this path and called "trainee"; because the path of non-delusion exists in order to cut off delusion, yet, having already trained in it, one no longer trains further, this path is subsumed under and called "beyond training"; and whatever is contrary to both is called "neither trainee nor beyond training." Further, because the path of non-craving exists in order to cut off craving, yet is not itself an object of craving, and one still trains in it — "exists in order to cut off craving, yet trains in it" excludes the path of one beyond training, while "is not itself an object of craving" excludes the mundane path — this path is subsumed under and called "trainee"; because the path of non-craving exists in order to cut off craving, yet is not itself an object of craving, and, having already trained in it, one no longer trains further — "having already trained in it, no longer training further" excludes the trainee's own path, while "is not itself an object of craving" excludes the mundane path — this path is subsumed under and called "beyond training"; and whatever is contrary to both is called "neither trainee nor beyond training." Further, whatever path exists in order to cut off the two kinds of seeking while fulfilling the one kind of seeking, and one still trains in it, is subsumed under this path and called "trainee" — "cutting off the two kinds of seeking" refers to the seeking of desire and the seeking of existence; "fulfilling the one kind of seeking" refers to the seeking of the holy life; whatever path exists in order to cut off the two kinds of seeking while fulfilling the one kind of seeking, yet, having already trained in it, one no longer trains further, is subsumed under this path and called "beyond training"; and whatever is contrary to both is called "neither trainee nor beyond training." Further, whatever path exists in order to cut off affliction and cultivate direct realization of the truths, and one still trains in it, is subsumed under this path and called "trainee"; whatever path exists in order to cut off affliction and cultivate direct realization of the truths, yet, having already trained in it, one no longer trains further, is subsumed under this path and called "beyond training"; and whatever is contrary to both is called "neither trainee nor beyond training." Further, whatever basis still has the attainment-of-affliction clinging to it, while also being pursued by an uncontaminated attainment, is a trainee; whatever basis no longer has the attainment-of-affliction clinging to it, while still being pursued by an uncontaminated attainment, is one beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is neither trainee nor beyond training. Further, whatever basis still has craving clinging to it, while also possessing an uncontaminated attainment, is a trainee; whatever basis no longer has craving clinging to it, while still possessing an uncontaminated attainment, is one beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is neither trainee nor beyond training. Further, whatever dharma is subsumed under the path of seeing or the path of cultivation is trainee; whatever dharma is subsumed under the path of the one beyond training is beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is neither trainee nor beyond training — the same holding for the stage of seeing, the stage of cultivation, and the stage beyond training. Further, whatever dharma is subsumed under the faculty of what is yet unknown but about to be known, or the faculty of what is already known, is trainee; whatever dharma is subsumed under the faculty of complete knowledge is beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is neither trainee nor beyond training. Further, whatever uncontaminated dharma exists within the continuum of the five kinds of individual — namely, one following faith, one following the Dharma, one resolved-through-faith, one attained-through-vision, and a bodily witness — is trainee; whatever uncontaminated dharma exists within the continuum of the two kinds of individual — namely, one liberated through wisdom and one liberated in both respects — is beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is neither trainee nor beyond training. Further, whatever uncontaminated dharma exists within the continuum of the seven kinds of individual — namely, the four approaches together with the first three fruits — is trainee; whatever uncontaminated dharma exists within the continuum of the one kind of individual — namely, the fruit of arhatship — is beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is called neither trainee nor beyond training. Further, whatever uncontaminated dharma exists within the continuum of the eighteen kinds of individual,
諸無漏法是學。九種補特伽羅相續中。諸無漏法是無學。與二相違是非學非無學。此二十二根。幾善。幾不善。幾無記。答八善。八無記六應分別。八善者。謂信等五三無漏根。八無記者。謂七色命根。六應分別者謂意五受。此復云何。謂意根或善。或不善。或無記。云何善。謂善作意相應意根。此有二種。謂有漏無漏。有漏有三。謂加行得。離染得。生得。無漏有二。謂學無學。云何不善。
is trainee; whatever uncontaminated dharma exists within the continuum of the nine kinds of individual is beyond training; and whatever is contrary to both is neither trainee nor beyond training. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are wholesome, how many unwholesome, and how many neutral-and-indeterminate? Answer: eight are wholesome, eight are neutral, and six require further distinction. The eight wholesome ones are the faith-faculty and the remaining four, together with the three uncontaminated faculties. The eight neutral ones are the seven form-faculties together with the life-faculty. The six requiring further distinction are the mind-faculty and the four feeling-faculties. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral. What is meant by wholesome? The mind-faculty associated with wholesome attention. This is, in turn, of two kinds — contaminated and uncontaminated. The contaminated is of three kinds — attained through preparatory practice, attained through freedom from defilement, and attained by birth. The uncontaminated is of two kinds — belonging to the trainee, and to the one beyond training. What is meant by unwholesome?
That the treatise offers nine genuinely distinct definitions of "trainee" and "beyond training," rather than settling on a single canonical formula, reflects a mature understanding that these two categories are not simple, atomic concepts but nodes where several independent lines of reasoning — about craving, about seeking, about clinging, about specific individual types — all happen to converge on the very same boundary, each approach illuminating a slightly different facet of what is, in the end, one single distinction.
8. Why There's No Such Thing as Neutral Displeasure
A genuinely delightful technical puzzle asks why the displeasure-faculty, unlike every other feeling-faculty, can never be neutral — only wholesome or unwholesome. The treatise works through each of the three neutral categories in turn, showing displeasure incompatible with every one: it cannot be obscured-neutral, since its own distressed aspect directly contradicts the joyful aspect of the views it would need to accompany; and it cannot be unobscured-neutral either, since deliberating about a future posture, craft, or ripening-result would, absurdly, require that posture, craft, or result to already be presently manifest, which the deportment-related, artisan-related, and ripening-born states, by their very unreflective nature, never require.
謂不善作意相應意根。此有二種。謂見所斷。修所斷。即欲界三十四隨眠俱生作意相應意根。云何無記。謂無記作意相應意根。此有二種。謂有覆無記。無覆無記。有覆無記者。謂欲界有身見。邊執見。及色無色界一切煩惱俱生作意相應意根。無覆無記者。謂威儀路。工巧處。異熟生。通果俱生作意相應意根。如意根。捨根喜根樂根隨應亦爾。苦根或善。或不善。或無記。云何善。謂善作意相應苦根。此復云何。謂生得善。云何不善。謂不善作意相應苦根。
The mind-faculty associated with unwholesome attention. This is, in turn, of two kinds — cut off by seeing, and cut off by cultivation — namely, the mind-faculty associated with any of the thirty-four underlying tendencies of the desire realm, and co-arising with attention. What is meant by neutral? The mind-faculty associated with neutral attention. This is, in turn, of two kinds — obscured-yet-neutral, and unobscured-neutral. Obscured-yet-neutral refers to the mind-faculty associated with the desire realm's own view of a real self and extreme-grasping view, and with every affliction of the form and formless realms, co-arising with attention. Unobscured-neutral refers to the mind-faculty associated with the deportment-related, the artisan-related, the ripening-born, and the penetrating-power-related, co-arising with attention. As with the mind-faculty, so too, as fitting, with the equanimity-, joy-, and pleasure-faculties. The pain-faculty may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral. What is meant by wholesome? The pain-faculty associated with wholesome attention. What is this, more precisely? Wholesome by birth. What is meant by unwholesome? The pain-faculty associated with unwholesome attention.
此復云何。謂修所斷。云何無記。謂無記作意相應苦根。此復云何。謂異熟生憂根。或善。或不善。云何善。謂善作意相應憂根。
What is this, more precisely? Cut off by cultivation. What is meant by neutral? The pain-faculty associated with neutral attention. What is this, more precisely? A ripening-born pain-faculty. The displeasure-faculty may be wholesome or unwholesome. What is meant by wholesome? The displeasure-faculty associated with wholesome attention.
如說。我於何時當於是處得具足住。若於聖處已具足住。於上解脫希求思慕心懷憂慼。云何不善。謂不善作意相應憂根。此復云何。
As it is said: at what time shall I abide fully in that very place? — and, having already fully abided in that noble place, still aspiring after and yearning for a further liberation still above it, one's mind harbors displeasure. What is meant by unwholesome? The displeasure-faculty associated with unwholesome attention. What is this, more precisely?
謂見所斷。及修所斷。問何故無有無記憂根。答無記有二。謂有覆無覆。憂根且非有覆無記。由與欲界有身見邊執見不相應故。所以者何。行相異故。彼二見歡行相轉。憂根慼行相轉。互相違法不相應故。憂根亦非無覆無記。非威儀路工巧處異熟生所攝故。問何故憂根非威儀路所攝。答憂根分別轉。威儀路無分別轉。若威儀路有憂根者。設有分別。我今應作如是威儀。如佛世尊。或如馬勝。即分別時。便應已住如是威儀。然威儀路無此分別。故威儀路無有憂根。問何故憂根非工巧處。答憂根分別轉。工巧處無分別轉。若工巧處有憂根者。設有分別。我今應作如是工巧。如佛世尊。或如妙業天子。即分別時已應成辦如是工巧。然工巧處無此分別。故工巧處無有憂根。問何故憂根非異熟生。答憂根分別轉異熟生無分別轉。若異熟生有憂根者。設有分別。我今應受如是異熟。如佛世尊。或如轉輪聖王。即分別時便應現受如是異熟。然異熟生無此分別故。異熟生無有憂根有說。憂根現加行。轉異熟生先業所引。是故憂根非異熟生。有說。憂根隨欲而轉。以於一切亡失事中。有起憂根。有不起故。異熟生者不隨欲受。由業轉故。是故憂根非異熟生。有說。憂根若是異熟。則應重業但受少果。謂有因作無間業已便生憂悴。即應名為受彼異熟。豈非果少。有說。憂根離欲時捨。
That which is cut off by seeing, and that which is cut off by cultivation. Question: why is there no such thing as a neutral displeasure-faculty? Answer: neutrality is of two kinds — obscured, and unobscured. The displeasure-faculty is certainly not of the obscured-neutral kind, since it is not associated with the desire realm's own view of a real self or extreme-grasping view — for why is this? Their aspects differ: these two views turn by way of a joyful aspect, while the displeasure-faculty turns by way of a distressed aspect, and dharmas mutually opposed in this way cannot be associated together. The displeasure-faculty is likewise not of the unobscured-neutral kind, since it is not subsumed under the deportment-related, the artisan-related, or the ripening-born. Question: why is the displeasure-faculty not subsumed under the deportment-related? Answer: the displeasure-faculty turns by way of deliberation, while the deportment-related turns without deliberation. Were the displeasure-faculty subsumed under the deportment-related, then, at the very moment of deliberating, "I should now assume this posture, as the World-Honored Buddha does, or as Aśvajit does," one would already, at that very moment of deliberation, have to have already assumed that very posture — yet the deportment-related involves no such deliberation, and hence the deportment-related contains no displeasure-faculty. Question: why is the displeasure-faculty not subsumed under the artisan-related? Answer: the displeasure-faculty turns by way of deliberation, while the artisan-related turns without deliberation. Were the displeasure-faculty subsumed under the artisan-related, then, at the very moment of deliberating, "I should now produce such-and-such a craft, as the World-Honored Buddha does, or as the divine son Viśvakarman does," one would already, at that very moment of deliberation, have to have already accomplished that very craft — yet the artisan-related involves no such deliberation, and hence the artisan-related contains no displeasure-faculty. Question: why is the displeasure-faculty not subsumed under the ripening-born? Answer: the displeasure-faculty turns by way of deliberation, while the ripening-born turns without deliberation. Were the displeasure-faculty subsumed under the ripening-born, then, at the very moment of deliberating, "I should now receive such-and-such a ripening-result, as the World-Honored Buddha does, or as a wheel-turning sage-king does," one would already, at that very moment of deliberation, have to be presently receiving that very ripening-result — yet the ripening-born involves no such deliberation, and hence the ripening-born contains no displeasure-faculty. Others say: the displeasure-faculty presently manifests through preparatory effort, while the ripening-born is drawn forth by past karma alone, and hence the displeasure-faculty is not ripening-born. Others say: the displeasure-faculty turns according to one's own wish, since, with respect to every matter of loss, some give rise to displeasure and some do not, whereas the ripening-born is received without regard to one's own wish, turning entirely according to karma, and hence the displeasure-faculty is not ripening-born. Others say: if the displeasure-faculty were a ripening-result, then a weighty karma would then yield but a small result — that is, one who has committed an ānantarya deed, and thereupon gives rise to displeasure and distress, would then already be receiving that very karma's own ripening-result — is this not too small a result for so weighty a deed? Others say: the displeasure-faculty is given up at the moment of becoming free from desire,
異熟生法離三界染而猶隨轉。是故憂根非異熟生。由此憂根唯善不善。
while a ripening-born dharma, though one becomes free from the defilement of all three realms, still continues to turn on regardless — and it is for this reason that the displeasure-faculty is not ripening-born. It is for these reasons that the displeasure-faculty is exclusively wholesome or unwholesome.
The recurring reductio — that if displeasure belonged to the deportment-related or ripening-born categories, merely deliberating about assuming the Buddha's own posture would instantly place one in that posture — is a wonderfully concrete way of proving a negative: rather than simply asserting that displeasure lacks the relevant mark, the treatise shows exactly what absurd consequence would follow if it did, letting the reader watch the contradiction unfold in real time.
9. What Makes Something Wholesome? Five Competing Definitions
The fascicle turns to defining wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral themselves, offering a cascade of definitions from different masters — skillful means bringing an agreeable, tranquil result; capacity to yield pleasant feeling or an agreeable destiny; the class of return-and-cessation against the class of turning-and-flowing — before Pārśva's own influential fourfold scheme distinguishes wholesomeness by its own nature (shame and moral dread, or the three wholesome roots, depending on which master one follows), by association, by concomitant arising, and, in the ultimate sense, as nirvāṇa itself, tranquil and secure.
已分別諸根善等。彼善等義今當說。問云何名善不善無記耶。答若法巧便所攝。能招愛果自性安隱。說名為善。巧便所攝者。顯道諦。能招愛果者。顯苦集諦少分。自性安隱者。顯滅諦。若法不巧便攝。招不愛果性不安隱。說名不善。此則顯示苦集諦少分。與二相違說名無記。有說。若法能得愛果及樂受果。說名為善。若法能得不愛果及苦受果。說名不善。與二相違說名無記。有說。若法能生愛有芽及解脫芽。說名為善。若法能生不愛有芽。說名不善。與二相違說名無記。有說。若法能感可愛趣。說名為善。若法能感不可愛趣。說名不善。與二相違說名無記。有說。若法墮還滅品清淨品。是輕舉性。說名為善。若法墮流轉品雜染品。是沈重性說名不善。與二相違說名無記。脇尊者曰。由四緣故說名為善。一自性故。二相應故。三等起故。四勝義故。自性善者。有說。是慚愧。
Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to wholesome and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of wholesome and the rest themselves. Question: why is something called wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral? Answer: whatever dharma is subsumed under skillful means, capable of bringing forth an agreeable result, and intrinsically tranquil, is called wholesome. "Subsumed under skillful means" reveals the truth of the path; "capable of bringing forth an agreeable result" reveals a portion of the truths of suffering and origin; "intrinsically tranquil" reveals the truth of cessation. Whatever dharma is not subsumed under skillful means, brings forth a disagreeable result, and is intrinsically untranquil, is called unwholesome — this reveals a further portion of the truths of suffering and origin. Whatever is contrary to both is called neutral. Others say: whatever dharma is capable of obtaining an agreeable result and the result of pleasant feeling is called wholesome; whatever dharma is capable of obtaining a disagreeable result and the result of painful feeling is called unwholesome; and whatever is contrary to both is called neutral. Others say: whatever dharma is capable of generating the sprout of agreeable existence and the sprout of liberation is called wholesome; whatever dharma is capable of generating the sprout of disagreeable existence is called unwholesome; and whatever is contrary to both is called neutral. Others say: whatever dharma is capable of bringing about an agreeable destiny is called wholesome; whatever dharma is capable of bringing about a disagreeable destiny is called unwholesome; and whatever is contrary to both is called neutral. Others say: whatever dharma falls within the class of return-and-cessation, the class of purity, of a light, buoyant nature, is called wholesome; whatever dharma falls within the class of turning-and-flowing, the class of defilement, of a heavy, sinking nature, is called unwholesome; and whatever is contrary to both is called neutral. The Venerable Pārśva says: it is on account of four conditions that something is called wholesome — first, by its own nature; second, by association; third, by concomitant arising; fourth, in the ultimate sense. As for wholesome by its own nature: some say it is shame and moral dread;
有說。是三善根。相應善者。是彼相應心心所法。等起善者。是彼所起身語業。心不相應行。勝義善者。謂涅槃安隱故名善。分別論者作如是言。自性善者。謂智。相應善者。謂彼相應識。等起善者。謂彼所起身語業。勝義善者。謂涅槃。由四緣故說名不善。一自性故。二相應故。三等起故。四勝義故。自性不善者。有說。是無慚無愧以一向不善遍不善心故。有說。是三不善根以具五義故。
others say it is the three wholesome roots. Wholesome by association refers to whatever mind and mental factors are associated with these. Wholesome by concomitant arising refers to whatever bodily and verbal karma, and formations dissociated from mind, are given rise to by these. Wholesome in the ultimate sense refers to nirvāṇa, called wholesome for being tranquil and secure. The Vibhajyavādins explain it this way: wholesome by its own nature refers to wisdom; wholesome by association refers to whatever consciousness is associated with it; wholesome by concomitant arising refers to whatever bodily and verbal karma is given rise to by it; wholesome in the ultimate sense refers to nirvāṇa. It is on account of four conditions that something is called unwholesome — first, by its own nature; second, by association; third, by concomitant arising; fourth, in the ultimate sense. As for unwholesome by its own nature: some say it is shamelessness and lack of moral dread, since these are exclusively unwholesome, pervading every unwholesome mind; others say it is the three unwholesome roots, since these possess all five defining characteristics —
相應不善者。謂彼相應心心所法。等起不善者。謂彼所起身語業。
unwholesome by association refers to whatever mind and mental factors are associated with these; unwholesome by concomitant arising refers to whatever bodily and verbal karma, and formations dissociated from mind, are given rise to by these;
心不相應行。勝義不善者。謂生死不安隱。故名不善。分別論者作如是言。自性不善者。謂癡。相應不善者。謂彼相應識。等起不善者。謂彼所起身語業。勝義不善者。謂生死。脇尊者言。若法是如理作意自性。如理作意相應。如理作意等起。如理作意等流果。離繫果者。是善。若法是不如理作意自性。不如理作意相應。不如理作意等起。不如理作意等流果者。是不善。與二相違是無記。如如理作意。不如理作意。慚愧無慚無愧。三善根三不善根。信等五根五蓋亦爾。集異門說。何故名善。答有可愛果。可樂果。適意果。
unwholesome in the ultimate sense refers to birth-and-death, called unwholesome for being untranquil and insecure. The Vibhajyavādins explain it this way: unwholesome by its own nature refers to delusion; unwholesome by association refers to whatever consciousness is associated with it; unwholesome by concomitant arising refers to whatever bodily and verbal karma is given rise to by it; unwholesome in the ultimate sense refers to birth-and-death. The Venerable Pārśva says: whatever dharma is by its own nature correct attention, associated with correct attention, arisen concomitantly from correct attention, or the ripening-and-separation result of correct attention, is wholesome; whatever dharma is by its own nature incorrect attention, associated with incorrect attention, or arisen concomitantly from incorrect attention, is unwholesome; and whatever is contrary to both is neutral — as with correct and incorrect attention, so too with shame and moral dread against shamelessness and lack of moral dread, the three wholesome roots against the three unwholesome roots, and the faith-faculty and the remaining four against the five hindrances, in each case accordingly. The Aggregation-and-Gateway treatise says: why is something called wholesome? Answer: because it brings an agreeable result, a pleasing result, a satisfying result,
悅意果。可欣尚果。名善。此說等流果。復次有可愛異熟。可樂異熟。適意異熟。悅意異熟。可欣尚異熟。名善。此說異熟果。與此相違是不善。與二相違是無記。餘義如結蘊初納息廣說。
a gratifying result, a delightful result, it is called wholesome — this speaks of the outflow-continuing result. Further, because it brings an agreeable ripening, a pleasing ripening, a satisfying ripening, a gratifying ripening, a delightful ripening, it is called wholesome — this speaks of the ripening-result. Whatever is contrary to this is unwholesome; whatever is contrary to both is neutral. The remaining meaning is explained fully, as in the Aggregation Nyāsa's very first chapter.
That nirvāṇa itself is folded into this definitional scheme as the "ultimate sense" of wholesomeness — the tranquil, secure endpoint every other wholesome dharma merely gestures toward — quietly unifies an entire fourfold taxonomy under a single destination: self-nature, association, and concomitant arising are all, on this account, simply nirvāṇa's own influence radiating outward into everything that leads toward it.
10. Reopening an Old Debate: Does Karma Really Ripen?
The treatise turns to a foundational metaphysical dispute about karmic ripening itself, refuting three separate rival positions in turn: the Dṛṣṭāntikas, who hold that only volition can be a genuine ripening-cause and only feeling a genuine ripening-result, rather than all five aggregates alike; the Kāśyapīya school, who hold that a ripening-cause's own substance is entirely destroyed the instant its result finally arises, exactly as a seed vanishes once its sprout has grown; and certain outside-path teachers who deny that good and evil karma bring about any ripening-result whatsoever.
此二十二根。幾有異熟。乃至廣說。問何故作此論。答欲止他宗顯己義故。謂譬喻者說。離思無異熟因。離受無異熟果。為遮彼說顯異熟因及異熟果俱通五蘊。飲光部說。諸異熟因。異熟未生彼因有體。異熟生已彼因便失。如芽未生種猶有體。芽既生已種體便無。
Of these twenty-two faculties, how many possess a ripening-result? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute a rival doctrine and establish our own — for the Dṛṣṭāntikas say that, apart from volition, there is no ripening-cause, and, apart from feeling, there is no ripening-result; it is in order to refute this claim, and to show that both the ripening-cause and the ripening-result alike pervade all five aggregates, that this treatise is composed. The Kāśyapīya school says that, before a ripening-result has yet arisen, its own ripening-cause still possesses genuine substance, but, once that ripening-result has arisen, the cause's own substance is then lost — exactly as, before a sprout has arisen, the seed still possesses genuine substance, but, once the sprout has arisen, the seed's own substance is gone.
欲止彼意顯因恒有。復有外道。執善惡業無果異熟。亦遮彼意顯善惡業有果異熟。故作斯論。
It is in order to refute this view, and to show that a cause always remains genuinely present, that this treatise is composed. There are, further, certain outside-path teachers who hold that good and evil karma bring about no ripening-result at all — it is in order to refute this view as well, and to show that good and evil karma do indeed bring about a genuine ripening-result, that this treatise is composed.
The Kāśyapīya image of a seed vanishing the instant its sprout appears is a genuinely intuitive picture of causation that this treatise nonetheless firmly rejects: insisting that a cause remains genuinely present even after its result has arisen is this tradition's own quiet refusal to let causation be modeled as a simple transfer or exchange, in which the cause's own reality is spent and used up in producing what follows from it.
11. Only Displeasure Ripens on Its Own — Tracing the Rest
A precise census determines exactly which of the twenty-two faculties carry a genuine ripening-result: only the displeasure-faculty does so unconditionally, eleven faculties never do, and the remaining ten — including the mind-faculty itself — depend entirely on whether the specific instance in question happens to be contaminated or uncontaminated, wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral, at that particular moment.
此二十二根。幾有異熟。幾無異熟。答一有異熟。十一無異熟。十應分別。一有異熟者。謂憂根。十一無異熟者。謂七色命三無漏根。十應分別者。謂意四受信等五根。此復云何。謂意根。或有異熟。或無異熟。云何有異熟。謂不善善有漏意根。云何無異熟。謂無記無漏意根。如意根。樂根喜根捨根亦爾。苦根或有異熟。或無異熟。云何有異熟。謂善不善苦根。云何無異熟。謂無記苦根。信等五根。或有異熟。或無異熟。云何有異熟。謂有漏信等五根。云何無異熟。謂無漏信等五根已分別諸根有異熟等。彼有異熟等義今當說。問云何名有異熟等。為與自異熟俱故名有異熟。為與他異熟俱故名有異熟耶。若與自異熟俱故名有異熟者。如何因果不並。又違伽他所說。如說。作惡不即熟等若與他異熟俱故名有異熟者。則無漏道應名有異熟。與他異熟俱故。答應說與自異熟俱故名有異熟。問如何因果不並。及違伽他說耶。答有二種俱。一者有俱。二者並俱。有俱者。如有因有果。有所緣有異熟等。並俱者。如有尋有伺。有喜有作意等。此中依有俱而作論。如有俱並俱。有俱不相離俱亦爾。有說。有三種俱。一者遠俱。二者近俱。三遠近俱。前二如前。遠近俱者如有漏有隨眠有緣有事等。此中但依遠俱作論。
Of these twenty-two faculties, how many possess a ripening-result, and how many do not? Answer: one possesses a ripening-result; eleven do not; ten require further distinction. The one possessing a ripening-result is the displeasure-faculty. The eleven lacking one are the seven form-faculties, the life-faculty, and the three uncontaminated faculties. The ten requiring further distinction are the mind-faculty, the four feeling-faculties, and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty may possess a ripening-result, or may not. What is meant by possessing one? The unwholesome and contaminated-wholesome mind-faculty. What is meant by not possessing one? The neutral and uncontaminated mind-faculty. As with the mind-faculty, so too with the pleasure-, joy-, and equanimity-faculties. The pain-faculty may possess a ripening-result, or may not. What is meant by possessing one? The wholesome and unwholesome pain-faculty. What is meant by not possessing one? The neutral pain-faculty. The faith-faculty and the remaining four may possess a ripening-result, or may not. What is meant by possessing one? The contaminated faith-faculty and the remaining four. What is meant by not possessing one? The uncontaminated faith-faculty and the remaining four. Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to possessing a ripening-result and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of possessing a ripening-result and the rest themselves. Question: what is meant by "possessing a ripening-result" and the rest? Is it called "possessing a ripening-result" because it co-exists with its own ripening-result, or because it co-exists with another's ripening-result? If it is called so because it co-exists with its own ripening-result, how could cause and result ever co-exist together, and would this not contradict the verse which says that an evil deed does not ripen at once? But if it is called so because it co-exists with another's ripening-result, then the uncontaminated path, too, would have to be said to "possess a ripening-result," since it co-exists with another's ripening-result as well. Answer: it should be said that it is called so because it co-exists with its own ripening-result. Question: then how could cause and result co-exist, and would this not contradict the verse? Answer: there are two kinds of co-existence — one, mere co-presence; the other, joint arising. Mere co-presence is as with cause and result, object and its condition, and possessing a ripening-result and the rest; joint arising is as with discursive thought and investigation, or joy and attention. It is with reference to mere co-presence that this treatise is composed — and, just as with mere co-presence and joint arising, so too with co-presence-without-separation. Others say: there are three kinds of co-existence — distant co-presence, near co-presence, and both distant and near co-presence together. The first two are as already explained; distant-and-near co-presence together is as with the contaminated, the underlying tendency, the object, and its own basis — and it is with reference to distant co-presence specifically that this treatise is composed.
That the very same mind-faculty can, depending entirely on its momentary moral coloring, either carry a genuine ripening-result or carry none at all is a further instance of mind's own peculiar fluidity already noted earlier in this fascicle: even a question as seemingly fixed as "does this faculty have karmic consequences" turns out, for mind specifically, to have no single answer at all, only an answer relative to whatever state it currently happens to be in.
12. Ripening as Becoming Something Else
A compact etymology settles why karmic causation is called "ripening" at all: it ripens as something of a genuinely different kind from its own cause, distinguished from the more familiar "same-class" continuation where a wholesome thought simply gives rise to a further wholesome thought of its own kind. This same section then reopens the treatise's recurring defense of the mundane path's own genuine power to cut off affliction, citing the outside-path teacher Udraka Rāmaputra's own well-documented progress through the formless attainments as concrete proof that ordinary, unenlightened effort really can permanently sever an underlying tendency, not merely suppress its visible manifestation.
問何故名異熟。答異類而熟。故名異熟。熟有二種。一同類。二異類。同類熟者。謂等流果。異類熟者。謂異熟果。餘如結蘊廣說此二十二根幾見所斷。乃至廣說。問何故作此論。答欲止他宗顯己義故。如譬喻者說。無有世俗道能斷煩惱。彼大德說。異生無有斷隨眠者。但能伏纏。亦非世俗道有永斷義。由契經言。聖慧見已方能斷故。為遮彼說。顯世俗道亦能永斷。諸異生類亦斷隨眠。故契經說。嗢達洛迦遏邏摩子。斷欲斷色。乃至斷於無所有處。生於非想非非想處。又說。有外道仙能離欲染。如是等所言聖慧見已方能斷者。顯能究竟斷有頂染。或有說言。諸世俗道雖能永斷。但是異生而非聖者。非捨勝道用劣道故。為止彼意。顯諸聖者亦以世俗道離八地染。有作是說。頓斷非漸。金剛喻定現在前時。一切煩惱一時斷故。為遮彼執顯必漸斷。四沙門果漸次得故。有執。現觀唯頓非漸。為遮彼說顯漸非頓。又為顯示有二部結二部對治。故作斯論。
Question: why is it called "ripening"? Answer: it ripens as something of a different kind, and hence is called "ripening." Ripening is of two kinds — same-class ripening, and different-class ripening. Same-class ripening refers to the outflow-continuing result; different-class ripening refers to the ripening-result. The remaining meaning is explained fully in the Aggregation Nyāsa. Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are cut off by seeing? And so on, in full. Question: why compose this treatise? Answer: in order to refute a rival doctrine and establish our own — for the Dṛṣṭāntikas say that no mundane path is capable of cutting off affliction, since the Great Virtuous One says that ordinary beings never cut off any underlying tendency, but merely suppress its manifest entanglement, and that no mundane path possesses the sense of permanently cutting anything off, on the grounds that the sūtra says only noble wisdom, having already seen the truths, is then capable of cutting off affliction. It is in order to refute this claim, and to show that the mundane path, too, is genuinely capable of permanently cutting off affliction, and that ordinary beings, too, do cut off underlying tendencies, that this treatise is composed — for the sūtra itself says that Udraka Rāmaputra cut off desire, cut off form, and so on, up through cutting off the sphere of nothing-whatsoever, and was thereupon reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; and it further says that there are outside-path seers capable of becoming free of sensory desire's own defilement. The sūtra's own statement that "only noble wisdom, having already seen the truths, is then capable of cutting off affliction" refers specifically to the ultimate cutting-off of the defilement of the Peak of Existence. Some, further, hold that mundane paths, though capable of permanently cutting off affliction, can do so only for ordinary beings, never for noble ones, since noble ones would never abandon a superior path in favor of an inferior one — it is in order to refute this view as well, and to show that noble ones, too, use the mundane path to become free of the defilement of the eight lower grounds, that this treatise is composed. Some hold that cutting off is always sudden, never gradual, since, at the very moment the vajra-like concentration manifests, every affliction whatsoever is cut off all at once — it is in order to refute this attachment, and to show that cutting-off is necessarily gradual, since the four fruits of the ascetic life are attained in due succession, that this treatise is composed. Some hold that direct realization is exclusively sudden, never gradual — it is in order to refute this claim as well, and to show that it is gradual, not sudden, that this treatise is composed. It is, further, in order to reveal that there are two distinct classes of fetter, and two distinct antidotes corresponding to each, that this treatise is composed.
Citing a specific, named heretic teacher's own genuine spiritual progress as proof that the mundane path can permanently cut off affliction is a striking evidentiary move: rather than resting the claim on doctrine alone, the treatise reaches for a documented historical case, treating even a rival tradition's own attested success as valid evidence for a claim about how liberation itself actually works.
13. A Precise Census: Which Underlying Tendencies Bind Which Faculty
An extraordinarily precise ledger tracks, faculty by faculty, exactly which and how many of the underlying tendencies bind each one at the path of seeing versus the path of cultivation: the mind- and equanimity-faculties bound by all eighty-eight tendencies cut off by seeing; the pleasure-faculty specifically by the twenty-eight tendencies belonging to the third dhyāna's own path of seeing, and five more at cultivation; the joy-faculty by fifty-two at seeing and six at cultivation; and the displeasure-faculty by a precise sixteen at seeing and only two — desire-realm hatred and ignorance — remaining at cultivation.
此二十二根。幾見所斷。幾修所斷。幾不斷。答九修所斷。三不斷。十應分別。九修所斷者。謂七色命苦根。三不斷者。謂三無漏根。十應分別者。謂意四受信等五根。謂意根或見所斷。或修所斷。或不斷。云何見所斷。謂意根隨信隨法行。現觀邊忍所斷。此復云何。謂見所斷八十八隨眠相應意根。云何修所斷。謂意根學見迹修所斷。此復云何。謂修所斷十隨眠相應意根。及不染污有漏意根。云何不斷。謂無漏意根。如意根。捨根亦爾。樂根或見所斷。
Of these twenty-two faculties, how many are cut off by seeing, how many by cultivation, and how many uncuttable? Answer: nine are cut off by cultivation; three are uncuttable; ten require further distinction. The nine cut off by cultivation are the seven form-faculties, the life-faculty, and the pain-faculty. The three uncuttable ones are the three uncontaminated faculties. The ten requiring further distinction are the mind-faculty, the four feeling-faculties, and the faith-faculty and the remaining four. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty may be cut off by seeing, by cultivation, or uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by seeing? The mind-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptances at the very edge of direct realization. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the eighty-eight underlying tendencies cut off by seeing. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The mind-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely? The mind-faculty associated with the ten underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled contaminated mind-faculty. What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated mind-faculty. As with the mind-faculty, so too with the equanimity-faculty. The pleasure-faculty may be cut off by seeing,
或修所斷。或不斷。云何見所斷。謂樂根隨信隨法行。現觀邊忍所斷。此復云何。謂見所斷二十八隨眠相應樂根。即第三靜慮見所斷。云何修所斷。謂樂根學見迹修所斷。此復云何。謂修所斷五隨眠相應樂根。及不染污有漏樂根。五隨眠者。謂欲界貪無明。色界貪慢無明。
by cultivation, or uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by seeing? The pleasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptances at the very edge of direct realization. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the twenty-eight underlying tendencies cut off by seeing — namely, those cut off by seeing within the third dhyāna. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The pleasure-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely? The pleasure-faculty associated with the five underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled contaminated pleasure-faculty. The five underlying tendencies are: desire-realm craving and ignorance, and form-realm craving, conceit, and ignorance.
云何不斷。謂無漏樂根。喜根或見所斷。或修所斷。或不斷。云何見所斷。謂喜根隨信隨法行。現觀邊忍所斷。此復云何謂見所斷五十二隨眠相應喜根。五十二隨眠者。謂欲界二十四。除瞋疑八。色界二十八。云何修所斷。謂喜根學見迹修所斷。此復云何。謂修所斷六隨眠相應喜根。及不染污有漏喜根。六隨眠者。謂欲色界貪慢無明。云何不斷。謂無漏喜根憂根。或見所斷。或修所斷。云何見所斷。謂憂根隨信隨法行。現觀邊忍所斷。此復云何。謂見所斷十六隨眠相應憂根。十六隨眠者。謂欲界邪見瞋疑無明各四。云何修所斷。謂憂根學見迹修所斷。此復云何。謂修所斷二隨眠相應憂根。及不染污憂根。二隨眠者。謂欲界瞋無明。信等五根或修所斷。或不斷。云何修所斷。謂有漏信等五根。云何不斷。謂無漏信等五根。
What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated pleasure-faculty. The joy-faculty may be cut off by seeing, by cultivation, or uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by seeing? The joy-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptances at the very edge of direct realization. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the fifty-two underlying tendencies cut off by seeing. These fifty-two underlying tendencies are: twenty-four of the desire realm, excepting the eight of hatred and doubt, together with twenty-eight of the form realm. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The joy-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely? The joy-faculty associated with the six underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled contaminated joy-faculty. The six underlying tendencies are: desire- and form-realm craving, conceit, and ignorance. What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated joy-faculty. The displeasure-faculty may be cut off by seeing, or by cultivation. What is meant by cut off by seeing? The displeasure-faculty of one following faith or following the Dharma, cut off by the patient acceptances at the very edge of direct realization. What is this, more precisely? The displeasure-faculty associated with the sixteen underlying tendencies cut off by seeing. These sixteen underlying tendencies are: desire-realm wrong view, hatred, doubt, and ignorance, each of four kinds. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The displeasure-faculty of the trainee, having already traversed the path of seeing, cut off by cultivation. What is this, more precisely? The displeasure-faculty associated with the two underlying tendencies cut off by cultivation, together with the undefiled displeasure-faculty. The two underlying tendencies are: desire-realm hatred and ignorance. The faith-faculty and the remaining four may be cut off by cultivation, or uncuttable. What is meant by cut off by cultivation? The contaminated faith-faculty and the remaining four. What is meant by uncuttable? The uncontaminated faith-faculty and the remaining four.
That the displeasure-faculty's own underlying tendencies narrow so dramatically, from sixteen at the path of seeing down to just two surviving into cultivation, offers a small but vivid statistical portrait of how the path of seeing itself works: an enormous number of afflictive attachments are severed all at once in that single, decisive breakthrough, leaving only the barest handful of hardier tendencies — hatred and ignorance specifically — to be gradually worn away afterward.
14. Seeing and Cultivation: Never Fully Separate, Yet Named for What Dominates
A subtle closing puzzle asks how "cut off by seeing" and "cut off by cultivation" can be cleanly distinguished at all, given that genuine cultivation (non-heedlessness) is present within the path of seeing, and genuine seeing (wisdom) is present within the path of cultivation. The resolution, drawn from the Venerable Vasumitra, names each path for whichever quality dominates within it — wisdom abundant and non-heedlessness scarce within the sharp, swift path of seeing, and the reverse within the patient, repeated path of cultivation — memorably compared to a sharp blade severing an object in a single stroke against a dull one requiring many repeated cuts to accomplish the very same task.
已分別諸根見斷等。彼見斷等義今當說。問云何名見所斷修所斷耶。如見不離修修不離見。見道中如實修可得。修道中如實見可得。慧名為見。不放逸名修。此中說何名為如實。此中意說。偏多猛利名為如實。謂見道中慧多不放逸少。修道中不放逸多慧少。或復此中意說。平等名為如實。謂見道中隨有爾所慧。即有爾所不放逸。修道中隨有爾所不放逸。即有爾所慧。尊者世友作如是說。觀四聖諦斷諸煩惱。云何分別。此是見所斷。此是修所斷。答由見而斷。由見而除。由見變吐。名見所斷。有說。見所斷亦應言修所斷。以見道中如實修可得故。如是說者。由見而斷。由見而除。由見變吐名見所斷。如所得道。若習若修若多修習。分齊斷。限量斷。漸令薄究竟斷。名修所斷。有說。修所斷亦應言見所斷。以修道中如實見可得故。如是說者。如所得道。若習若修若多修習。分齊斷。限量斷。漸令薄究竟斷。名修所斷。問此言有何義。答此說見道。是猛利道暫現在前。九品煩惱一時而斷。修道是不猛利道。
Having now distinguished the faculties with respect to being cut off by seeing and the rest, we should next explain the meaning of being cut off by seeing and the rest themselves. Question: why is something called "cut off by seeing" or "cut off by cultivation"? Just as seeing is never separate from cultivation, and cultivation never separate from seeing, so too can genuine cultivation be found within the path of seeing, and genuine seeing within the path of cultivation, since wisdom is called "seeing" and non-heedlessness is called "cultivation" — what, then, is meant here by "genuine"? Here, the intended sense is that whichever quality dominates and is most pronounced is called "genuine" — that is, within the path of seeing, wisdom is abundant and non-heedlessness scarce; within the path of cultivation, non-heedlessness is abundant and wisdom scarce. Or, alternately, the intended sense here may be that of equal balance — that is, within the path of seeing, however much wisdom there is, that much non-heedlessness accompanies it; within the path of cultivation, however much non-heedlessness there is, that much wisdom accompanies it. The Venerable Vasumitra explains it this way: by contemplating the four noble truths, one cuts off every affliction — how, then, is the distinction to be drawn between what is cut off by seeing and what is cut off by cultivation? Answer: whatever is cut off by seeing, removed by seeing, and expelled by seeing, is called cut off by seeing. Others say: what is cut off by seeing ought also to be called cut off by cultivation, since genuine cultivation is indeed found within the path of seeing. According to this final account: whatever is cut off by seeing, removed by seeing, and expelled by seeing, is called cut off by seeing; whatever is cut off through practicing, cultivating, and repeatedly cultivating the very path one has already attained, cut off by fixed measure, by determinate degree, gradually thinned out and ultimately eliminated, is called cut off by cultivation. Others say: what is cut off by cultivation ought also to be called cut off by seeing, since genuine seeing is indeed found within the path of cultivation. According to this final account: whatever is cut off through practicing, cultivating, and repeatedly cultivating the very path one has already attained, cut off by fixed measure, by determinate degree, gradually thinned out and ultimately eliminated, is called cut off by cultivation. Question: what is the meaning of this account? Answer: it speaks of the path of seeing as a sharp, forceful path, manifesting only briefly, cutting off all nine grades of affliction at a single stroke; the path of cultivation is a less forceful path,
數習現前九品煩惱九時而斷。如利鈍刀俱截一物。利者一割便斷。
manifesting through repeated practice, cutting off the nine grades of affliction across nine separate occasions — exactly as a sharp blade and a dull one, cutting the very same object, the sharp one severs it in a single stroke, while the dull one requires many strokes before it is finally severed.
The sharp-blade-versus-dull-blade image captures something genuinely important about this entire distinction that a purely definitional account might miss: the difference between seeing and cultivation is ultimately one of speed and force applied to the very same underlying task, not a difference in what kind of affliction each one is actually capable of removing.
15. Counting Aspects: Two, Three, Four, or Five Paths to the Same Cutting-Off
The fascicle closes with several further, alternative technical criteria for distinguishing the two kinds of cutting-off — counted variously by two aspects (seeing and wisdom) against three (seeing, knowledge, and wisdom), or four aspects (the eye, clarity, awakening, wisdom) against five (adding knowledge to that same list), and, most simply of all, by whether the cutting agent is patient acceptance itself or the fuller knowledge that follows it.
鈍者數割乃斷。有說。若法以見增道斷名見所斷。若法以修增道斷名修所斷。有說。若法以二相道斷名見所斷。二相者。謂見相慧相。若法以三相道斷名修所斷。三相者。謂見智慧相。有說。若法以四相道斷名見所斷。四相者。謂眼明覺慧相。若法以五相道斷名修所斷。五相者。謂眼智明覺慧相。有說。若法由忍斷名見所斷。
Others say: whatever dharma is cut off by a path whose own dominant factor is seeing is called cut off by seeing; whatever dharma is cut off by a path whose own dominant factor is cultivation is called cut off by cultivation. Others say: whatever dharma is cut off by a path bearing two aspects is called cut off by seeing — the two aspects being the aspect of seeing and the aspect of wisdom; whatever dharma is cut off by a path bearing three aspects is called cut off by cultivation — the three aspects being the aspect of seeing, of knowledge, and of wisdom. Others say: whatever dharma is cut off by a path bearing four aspects is called cut off by seeing — the four aspects being the aspect of the eye, of clarity, of awakening, and of wisdom; whatever dharma is cut off by a path bearing five aspects is called cut off by cultivation — the five aspects being the aspect of the eye, of knowledge, of clarity, of awakening, and of wisdom. Others say: whatever dharma is cut off by patient acceptance is called cut off by seeing;
若法由智斷名修所斷。餘廣說如結蘊初納息。
whatever dharma is cut off by knowledge is called cut off by cultivation. The remaining meaning is explained fully, as in the Aggregation Nyāsa's very first chapter.
That this single distinction between seeing and cultivation can be counted in at least four entirely different ways — by two aspects, three, four, or five — without the treatise ever declaring one counting scheme definitively superior to the rest, is a fitting way to close a fascicle built almost entirely from parallel, coexisting classifications: even at its very end, this text remains far more interested in cataloging every available way of seeing a distinction than in insisting there could only ever be one correct way to count it.
Fascicle 144 Complete
This closes fascicle 144 of Ru-Yi's translation, drawn from the treatise's true CBETA boundary. Fascicle 144 continues the Faculty Nyāsa (根納息第一之三): an exhaustive four-cornered analysis of which of the twenty-two faculties belong to the trainee, the one beyond training, or neither, nine distinct definitions of these three categories themselves, a precise census of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral faculties (including why displeasure alone can never be neutral), a renewed defense of karmic ripening and of the mundane path's own genuine power to cut off affliction, and a faculty-by-faculty census of exactly which underlying tendencies are cut off by seeing versus by cultivation. Fascicle 145 continues within this same nyāsa (根納息第一之四).