Does Attainment Need Its Own Attainment?

Question: what is the difference between attainment and non-attainment? Answer: the very name already differs — one is named "attainment," the other "non-attainment." Furthermore, attainment may be either contaminated or uncontaminated, while non-attainment is exclusively contaminated. Furthermore, attainment may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral, while non-attainment is exclusively neutral. Furthermore, attainment may be fettered to any of the three realms or unfettered, while non-attainment is exclusively fettered to the three realms. Furthermore, attainment may belong to a trainee, a non-trainee, or to neither, while non-attainment exclusively belongs to neither trainee nor non-trainee. Furthermore, attainment may be abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, or unabandoned, while non-attainment is exclusively abandoned by cultivation. Furthermore, attainment may be defiled or undefiled, while non-attainment is exclusively undefiled. Furthermore, attainment may be a ripening-result or not a ripening-result, while non-attainment is exclusively not a ripening-result. Furthermore, attainment may itself possess a ripening-result or lack one, while non-attainment exclusively lacks one. Furthermore, an attainment and the dharma it attains may either co-arise or not co-arise together, while a non-attainment and the dharma it fails to obtain never co-arise together. Furthermore, attainment may be subsumed under any of the three truths of suffering, of origin, or of the path, while non-attainment is exclusively subsumed under the truths of suffering and of origin. By means of gateways such as these, the differences between attainment and non-attainment should be understood.

Question: why is it that an attainment and the dharma it attains sometimes share the same nature and category, and sometimes differ? Answer: attainment is of three kinds. First, the attainment of a conditioned dharma;

second, the attainment of analytical cessation; and third, the attainment of non-analytical cessation. The attainment of a conditioned dharma follows the particular nature and category of the dharma it attains, since a conditioned dharma possesses its own causal efficacy and can thereby draw forth its own attainment. The attainment of analytical cessation follows the particular nature and category of the very path that realizes it, since analytical cessation itself possesses no causal efficacy at all, but is sought and realized solely through the power of the path — it is the path, at the moment of realization, that draws forth that cessation's attainment. The attainment of non-analytical cessation follows the particular nature and category of whatever it itself depends upon, since non-analytical cessation likewise possesses no causal efficacy, is not something sought by any path, and its attainment becomes manifest solely in dependence upon the life-faculty and one's own class of homogeneous existence. Question: what nature and category does non-attainment itself follow? Answer: it definitely does not follow the dharma it fails to obtain, since the two are directly opposed; nor does it follow whatever is sought by a path or a non-path, since it operates solely in dependence upon the life-faculty and one's class of homogeneous existence — rather, it follows whatever it itself depends upon. Question: if both non-attainment and the attainment of non-analytical cessation alike follow whatever they themselves depend upon, and that basis may be either a ripening-result or purely of the outflow-continuing kind, which of these two natures do they follow? Answer: they follow the outflow-continuing nature, since its meaning applies universally, whereas a ripening-result does not apply universally and so is not taken as the basis for this rule. Question: if non-attainment followed the particular nature and category of the dharma it fails to obtain, what fault would follow? Answer: one whose wholesome roots have been severed would then have to possess wholesome dharmas; one already freed from the defilement of desire would then have to possess unwholesome dharmas; every non-trainee would then have to possess defilement; every ordinary worldling would then have to possess the uncontaminated dharmas of all three vehicles; one who has regressed from a fruit would then have to possess that fruit; one who has forsaken the approach to a fruit would then have to possess that approach; and the non-attainment of the two kinds of cessation would then have to be unconditioned. Owing to these and similar faults, non-attainment cannot be said to vary according to the particular nature and category of the dharma it fails to obtain.

Question: as for the attainment just spoken of, does it in turn have its own attainment, or does it not? If it does have its own attainment, then that attainment would in turn have to be attained by yet another attainment, and so on — why would this not run on without end? If it does not have its own attainment, then by what means could this original attainment itself ever be said to be possessed? Answer: it should be said that attainment does have a further attainment. Question: if so, would this not entail an infinite regress? Answer: an infinite regress here entails no real fault. It is precisely because of this that saṃsāra is so hard to sever, so hard to cross beyond. Alternatively, all of these countless attainments co-arise and cease together within a single instant, and so entail no fault of infinite regress. According to this latter account, within a single instant there are only three dharmas: first, the dharma itself; second, its attainment; and third, the attainment of that attainment. Through the attainment, one possesses the dharma itself and the attainment-of-attainment; through the attainment-of-attainment, one possesses the attainment. Because each attains the other in turn, no infinite regress results. It is for this reason that one speaks of a single attainment-of-attainment shared between the aggregate of matter and the aggregate of formations, and likewise a single attainment-of-attainment shared between the aggregate of consciousness and the aggregate of formations, and a single attainment-of-attainment shared between the conditioned and the unconditioned. Question: does each individual dharma have its own separate attainment, or is this not so? Some hold that co-arisen dharmas share one and the same attainment-of-attainment. Question: if so, then one should not speak, as above, of a single attainment-of-attainment shared between the aggregate of matter and the aggregate of formations, and so on. Answer: this is said precisely in order to make clear that a dharma and its attainment-of-attainment have no separate attainment apart from each other — though in truth there is no reason the five aggregates and the four aggregates could not each share their own single attainment-of-attainment. Others hold that each individual dharma has its own separate attainment-of-attainment, with the sole exception that the attainment-of-attainment shares a single attainment-of-attainment with the dharma it belongs to. Question: if so, would this not entail the very fault of infinite regress? For an attainment itself has arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, and arising and the rest in turn have their own attainment and attainment-of-attainment, and that attainment-of-attainment's own attainment-of-attainment in turn has arising and the rest,

and proceeding on in this way an infinite regress would indeed result. Answer: what real fault would an infinite regress here entail? It is precisely because of this that saṃsāra is so hard to sever, so hard to cross beyond. Or else, all of these dharmas co-arise and cease together within a single instant, and so entail no fault of infinite regress. According to this account, a dharma and its arising and the rest share one and the same attainment-of-attainment, since a characteristic and the thing it characterizes stand in such extremely close proximity. By this means one can properly account for the single shared attainment-of-attainment between the aggregate of matter and the aggregate of formations, and so on, while also, as before, avoiding the fault of infinite regress. As was said of attainment, so too non-attainment stands opposed to attainment, and should be explained in the very same expanded manner. There is, however, no such thing as a non-attainment of a non-attainment occurring at the same time — for whenever a dharma belonging to a sentient being is currently manifest, it must necessarily co-occur with its own attainment; hence, at the very moment a non-attainment arises, it is decisively never co-arisen with a non-attainment of itself, nor with the dharma it fails to obtain, these three dharmas being mutually opposed to one another. Speaking of these as occurring at different times, however, is not thereby ruled out.

Question: are past and future attainments possessed, or are they not possessed? If they are possessed, would this not entail an infinite regress — for within a single instant three dharmas co-arise: first, the dharma itself; second, its attainment; and third, the attainment of that attainment; at the ceasing of these three, six further attainments arise, namely three attainments and three attainments-of-attainment;

at the ceasing of these six, twelve further attainments arise, namely six attainments and six attainments-of-attainment; at the ceasing of these twelve, twenty-four further attainments arise, namely twelve attainments and twelve attainments-of-attainment — and proceeding on in this way, without beginning in time, doubling moment by moment clear through to the furthest future, their number would become limitless. If even neighboring adjacent instants already double in this way, how much more so the attainments belonging to instants separated across many earlier moments — hence an infinite regress indeed results through this successive doubling. And if, on the other hand, they are not possessed, this would directly contradict what is stated later in this very treatise-aggregate — namely, that when one dies in the formless realm and is reborn in the desire realm, one should say, of the aggregates, sense-elements, sense-bases, great elements, wholesome roots, unwholesome roots, neutral roots, bonds, latent defilements, and secondary defilements one thereby obtains, whether their attainment is a previously-attained attainment or a never-before-attained attainment. The answer given there is: wholesome and defiled dharmas should be called previously-attained attainments, while ripening dharmas should be called never-before-attained attainments — and this would only make sense if such dharmas are indeed possessed, since attainment itself can be either wholesome or defiled [in the sense of belonging to a wholesome or defiled dharma]. The proper answer should therefore be: past and future attainments are indeed possessed, since wholesome and defiled dharmas and the rest each have attainments spanning all three time-periods. Question: if so, is this not an infinite regress after all? Answer: what real fault would an infinite regress here entail? It is precisely because of this that saṃsāra is so hard to sever, so hard to cross beyond. Or else, all of these attainments arise together within a single instant, entailing no fault of infinite regress. Moreover, these attainments can only be called "many" — never truly infinite — since they still admit of a finite bound. Other masters hold that there is no such thing as possessing a past or future attainment at all, and hence no fault of infinite regress arises. Question: how, then, is what is stated later in this treatise-aggregate to be reconciled? Answer: that later passage speaks of the dharma that is attained, not of the attainment that does the attaining — what fault could there be in this? According to the first position, however, one should hold, just as originally stated, that an attainment must be possessed in just the same way as the dharma it attains is possessed. Furthermore, it is precisely because of attainment that one is named a "śramaṇa-fruit." If past and future attainments were not possessed, then every śramaṇa-fruit would have to be relinquished the very instant it was attained; yet no such thing occurs. Furthermore, the noble path is relinquished only at three particular occasions — at the time of regression, at the time of attaining a fruit, and at the time of

refining one's faculties. If past and future attainments were not possessed, then the noble path would have to be relinquished at every single instant, rather than only at these three particular occasions — and in order to prevent this very fault, it must be held that past and future attainments are indeed possessed. If one possesses the dharma attained, one also possesses its attainment; if the dharma attained is relinquished, its attainment is also relinquished, since a dharma and its attainment are relinquished together in just the same way. Attainment, however, is altogether of four kinds: first, that which precedes its own dharma; second, that which follows its own dharma; third, that which is simultaneous with its own dharma; and fourth, that which is neither before, after, nor simultaneous with its own dharma. As for the dharma attained, it is of six kinds:

first, a dharma attained that has only a simultaneous attainment, as with ripening-produced dharmas and the like; second, a dharma attained that has only a preceding attainment, as with the mundane wisdom bordering on the three kinds of knowledge — some hold that these too have a simultaneous attainment; third, a dharma attained that has only a simultaneous attainment and a following attainment, as with the individually-liberating precepts and the like; fourth, a dharma attained that has only a simultaneous attainment and a preceding attainment, as with the patient acceptance belonging to the class-knowledge of the path and the like; fifth, a dharma attained that has a preceding, following, and simultaneous attainment all three, as with the remaining wholesome and defiled dharmas and so on; and sixth, a dharma attained of which one cannot speak of any preceding, following, or simultaneous attainment, yet which nonetheless does have attainments — namely, analytical and non-analytical cessation. There is definitely no dharma that has only a following attainment and no other, since at the very moment any dharma becomes currently manifest, it must already have an attainment. Non-attainment, altogether, is of three kinds: first, that which precedes its own dharma; second, that which follows its own dharma; and third, that which is neither before, after, nor simultaneous with its own dharma. The dharma not obtained is likewise of three kinds: first, a dharma not obtained that has only a preceding non-attainment — this refers to a future dharma belonging to a sentient being that will altogether never arise, and to the very last mind-moment before entering final nirvāṇa without remainder, and the like; second, a dharma not obtained that has both a preceding and a following non-attainment — this refers to every other dharma belonging to a sentient being, as appropriate; and third, a dharma not obtained that has no preceding, following, or simultaneous non-attainment at all, and yet does have non-attainment — this refers to analytical and non-analytical cessation. There is definitely no non-attainment simultaneous with its own dharma, since whenever a dharma capable of being obtained becomes currently manifest, it must necessarily already have an attainment, while whatever is not the kind of dharma capable of being obtained has neither attainment nor non-attainment at all. Nor is there any non-attainment that occurs only afterward, since it is not the case that one has, from beginningless time onward, always already possessed a given dharma — once one has not yet relinquished it, its own class must necessarily arise and eventually be exhausted. Non-attainment, however, is by nature weak, and is only ever possessed in the present: the very instant it is obtained it is already relinquished, and it continuously persists during the period before the dharma is obtained and after it has already been relinquished

— this should be understood. The attainments arisen through the path of seeing should be understood as fifteen kinds, that is, the attainments co-arisen at each of the fifteen mind-moments.

At the point where the path of seeing ceases, it ceases together with the attainments it has itself given rise to — just as, when the sun sets, it sets together with the very light it has itself given off. Yet the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma has fifteen attainments, the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma has fourteen, and so on down to the patient acceptance regarding the path-in-class having only a single attainment. Question: are the attainments belonging to the path of seeing only this many, or are there yet others besides? Some hold: only this many. Others hold: there are yet further ones besides — future attainments not yet arisen simply cannot be spoken of. This latter view is untenable: how could one properly say "there are none," and yet refuse to say "there are, but they cannot be spoken of"? The correct account is:

there are yet further future attainments besides. The patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma co-arises with a single attainment — patient acceptances, in relation to one another, never serve as each other's cause. The knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma co-arises with three attainments: two path-attainments and one liberation-attainment. The two path-attainments are the attainment of the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma and the attainment of the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma; the one liberation-attainment is the analytical cessation of the ten bonds abandoned by seeing suffering in the desire realm, whose ten liberation-attainments arise together as one. The knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma is not a cause of any of these three attainments, whereas the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of all three. The patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-class co-arises with four attainments: three path-attainments and one liberation-attainment. The patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-class is not a cause of any of these four attainments; the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of all four; the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of three of them, excluding the attainment of the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma, since a preparatory wholesome dharma can only ever be the superior cause, never the inferior one — for the attainment of a conditioned dharma follows the relative superiority or inferiority of the dharma it attains. The knowledge of suffering-in-class co-arises with six attainments: four path-attainments and two liberation-attainments. The knowledge of suffering-in-class is not a cause of any of these six attainments; the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of all six; the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of five of them, excluding the attainment of the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma, since that attainment is comparatively inferior; and the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-class is a cause of three of them, excluding the first three attainments, since those too are comparatively inferior relative to it. Question: that it should fail to serve as a cause for those first two path-attainments makes sense, since what they themselves attain is comparatively inferior — but how can it be right that it should also fail to serve as a cause for that earlier liberation-attainment, given that what it itself attains is of the very highest order? Answer: the attainment of a conditioned dharma follows the relative superiority or inferiority of the dharma it attains and is drawn forth accordingly, whereas the attainment of an unconditioned dharma follows the relative superiority or inferiority of the path that draws it forth — and since that path is itself inferior, its attainment cannot serve as a cause. Proceeding on in just this way, clear through to the patient acceptance regarding the path-in-class, which co-arises with twenty-two attainments — fifteen path-attainments and seven liberation-attainments — the patient acceptance regarding the path-in-class is not a cause of any of these attainments; the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of all twenty-two of them; the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma is a cause of twenty-one of them, excluding the attainment of the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma; and so on down to the knowledge of the path-in-Dharma, which is a cause of only three attainments — two path-attainments and one liberation-attainment — and not a cause of the preceding nineteen attainments, since those are comparatively inferior relative to it. It is for this reason that one asks: is there ever an uncontaminated dharma arisen earlier that fails to serve as the cause of an uncontaminated dharma arisen later? Answer: yes — namely, whenever the earlier dharma is superior and the later one inferior.

At the very moment the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma becomes currently manifest, it cultivates a limitless number of future instances of that very same patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma — this present instance of patient acceptance is the cause of what it cultivates,

and what it cultivates is its fruit. Others hold that this present instance of patient acceptance is not the cause of what it cultivates, and that what it cultivates is not its fruit, since that future instance in fact never becomes currently manifest even for a single instant. The verdict: it should be said that the present instance is indeed the cause and the future instance indeed its fruit, since both are subsumed within one and the same mental continuum and neither is an inferior path relative to the other. Proceeding on in just this way, clear through to the moment the vajra-like concentration becomes currently manifest, it cultivates a limitless number of future instances of that very same vajra-like concentration — this present instance of concentration is the cause of what it cultivates, and what it cultivates is its fruit. Others hold that this present instance of concentration is not the cause of what it cultivates, and that what it cultivates is not its fruit, since that future instance in fact never becomes currently manifest even for a single instant. The verdict: it should be said that the present instance is indeed the cause and the future instance indeed its fruit, since both are subsumed within one and the same mental continuum and neither is an inferior path relative to the other.

The already-arisen patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma serves as the cause of the not-yet-arisen patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma, and also as the cause of the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma and every other trainee's and non-trainee's path. The already-arisen knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma serves as the cause of the not-yet-arisen knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma, and also as the cause of the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-class and every other trainee's and non-trainee's path, but does not serve as the cause of the patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma. Proceeding on in just this way, clear through to the already-arisen knowledge of exhaustion serving as the cause of the not-yet-arisen knowledge of exhaustion, and also as the cause of every subsequent already-arisen or not-yet-arisen non-trainee path, but not as the cause of any trainee path whatsoever. It is for this reason that one asks: is there ever an already-arisen uncontaminated dharma that fails to serve as the cause of a not-yet-arisen uncontaminated dharma? Answer: yes — for instance, the already-arisen knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma is not the cause of the not-yet-arisen patient acceptance regarding suffering-in-the-Dharma, and so on down to the already-arisen knowledge of exhaustion not being the cause of the not-yet-arisen vajra-like concentration — a superior path never serving as the cause of an inferior one.

The truths of suffering and of origin are contaminated, and their attainments are likewise contaminated; the truth of cessation is uncontaminated, yet its attainments may be either contaminated or uncontaminated; the truth of the path is uncontaminated, and its attainments are likewise uncontaminated. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral, and their attainments follow suit;

the truths of cessation and of the path are wholesome, and their attainments are likewise wholesome. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin are fettered to the three realms, and their attainments follow suit;

the truth of cessation is unfettered, yet its attainments may be fettered to the form realm, fettered to the formless realm, or unfettered; the truth of the path is unfettered, and its attainments are likewise unfettered. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin belong to neither trainee nor non-trainee, and their attainments follow suit; the truth of cessation belongs to neither trainee nor non-trainee, yet its attainments may belong to a trainee, a non-trainee, or to neither; the truth of the path belongs to a trainee or a non-trainee, and

its attainments follow suit. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin are abandoned by seeing or by cultivation, and their attainments follow suit; the truth of cessation is unabandoned, yet its attainments may be abandoned by cultivation or unabandoned; the truth of the path is unabandoned, and its attainments are likewise unabandoned. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin are defiled or undefiled, and their attainments follow suit; the truths of cessation and of the path are undefiled, and their attainments are likewise undefiled. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin may either possess a ripening-result or lack one, and their attainments follow suit; the truth of cessation lacks a ripening-result, yet its attainments may either possess one or lack one; the truth of the path lacks a ripening-result, and its attainments likewise lack one. Furthermore, the truths of suffering and of origin are subsumed under the truths of suffering and of origin, and their attainments follow suit; the truth of cessation is subsumed under the truth of cessation, yet its attainments are subsumed under all three of the truths of suffering, origin, and the path; the truth of the path is subsumed under the truth of the path, and its attainments follow suit. Such, then, are the various gateways of sameness and difference between the four truths that are attained and the attainment that attains them.

Question: for a dharma fettered to a given ground, how many kinds of liberation-attainment does it have? Answer: from the desire realm up through the sphere of nothing-at-all, every dharma abandoned by seeing or by cultivation has three kinds of liberation-attainment — namely, those belonging to a trainee, a non-trainee, or to neither. As for the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the dharma abandoned by seeing,

together with the dharma abandoned by cultivation belonging to its first eight grades, each has two kinds of liberation-attainment, namely those belonging to a trainee or a non-trainee; the dharma abandoned by cultivation belonging to its ninth grade has only one kind of liberation-attainment, namely that belonging to a non-trainee, since it is only at the very first moment of becoming a non-trainee that this liberation-attainment first arises at all. Question: for a dharma fettered to a given ground, how many grounds' worth of uncontaminated liberation-attainment does it have? Some hold that every liberation-attainment follows the very antidote that abandons the defilement, and explain the matter thus:

for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the desire realm, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under the proximate-access ground alone; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the first dhyāna, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under three grounds; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the second dhyāna, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under four grounds; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the third dhyāna, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under five grounds; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the fourth dhyāna, and for the dharma abandoned by seeing in the formless realm, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under six grounds; for the dharma abandoned by cultivation in the sphere of infinite space, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under seven grounds;

for the dharma abandoned by cultivation in the sphere of infinite consciousness, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under eight grounds; and for the dharma abandoned by cultivation in the sphere of nothing-at-all and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under nine grounds. Others hold that every liberation-attainment follows the very antidote that destroys the defiled ground itself, and explain the matter thus: for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the desire and form realms, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is in every case subsumed under six grounds; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the sphere of infinite space, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under seven grounds; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the sphere of infinite consciousness, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under eight grounds; and for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the sphere of nothing-at-all and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under nine grounds. Still others hold that whichever ground possesses a dharma-knowledge-class path also possesses, for that ground, the desire realm's dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation with its own uncontaminated liberation-attainment, while whichever ground possesses a class-knowledge-class path also possesses, for that ground, the form and formless realms' dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation with its own uncontaminated liberation-attainment, and explain the matter thus: for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the desire realm, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under six grounds; for the dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the form and formless realms, its uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under nine grounds. The verdict: the first position stated is the sound one, since every liberation-attainment must be drawn forth precisely by the power of the antidote that abandons the defilement. Question: at the moment one uses the dharma-knowledge or the class-knowledge to become free from the defilement abandoned by cultivation in the form or formless realm, is the resulting uncontaminated liberation-attainment of that form- or formless-realm dharma abandoned by cultivation subsumed under the dharma-knowledge class, or under the class-knowledge class? If it is subsumed under the dharma-knowledge class, this seems untenable, since that dharma and its abandonment are cognized by class-knowledge; but if it is subsumed under the class-knowledge class, this too seems untenable, since that abandonment and its attainment are realized by dharma-knowledge. Some hold that this liberation-attainment is subsumed under the class-knowledge class. Question: but is that abandonment and its attainment not realized precisely by dharma-knowledge? Answer: although realized by dharma-knowledge, it is nonetheless subsumed under class-knowledge, since it is cognized by class-knowledge. Other masters hold that this uncontaminated liberation-attainment is subsumed under the dharma-knowledge class. Question: but is that dharma and its abandonment not cognized precisely by class-knowledge? Answer: although cognized by class-knowledge, it is nonetheless subsumed under dharma-knowledge, since it is realized by dharma-knowledge. The verdict: the first position stated is the sound one, since the class-knowledge class is this liberation-attainment's own uncommon, decisive antidote. Question: when a noble one uses the mundane path to become free from the defilement of a given ground, is this a previously-attained path, or a never-before-attained path? Some hold: it is a previously-attained path, since this path has, from beginningless time onward, already been repeatedly practiced and previously attained, and is now simply becoming currently manifest once again. They explain the matter thus:

when a noble one uses the mundane path to become free from the very topmost grade of the defilement abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, he obtains, with respect to that very topmost grade of dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, two kinds of liberation-attainment — a mundane attainment and an uncontaminated attainment. The mundane attainment is a previously-attained one; the uncontaminated attainment belongs to the noble-path class, since at the very moment the mundane path becomes currently manifest, it simultaneously cultivates the future uncontaminated path as well. With respect to the topmost grade of dharma abandoned by seeing in the desire realm, he obtains only one kind of liberation-attainment, namely the mundane attainment, which is a previously-attained one — the class-knowledge type is not obtained, since the uncontaminated attainment has already been obtained beforehand. Question: if so, how can this still be called a "common antidote" path, once it has turned into an "uncommon antidote"? For this previously-attained path originally, taken as a whole, treated every dharma abandoned by seeing and by cultivation in the desire realm as a set of nine grades to be abandoned together, whereas now this same path abandons only what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. Answer: this path is still properly called a "common antidote" path, since it continuously retains the very power to abandon both together — it is simply that what is abandoned by seeing has already been abandoned beforehand, so that there is now nothing left there for it to abandon, not that it has lost the capacity to abandon it; for this reason it is always properly called a "common antidote" path. The very same pattern holds when becoming free from the topmost grade down through the very lowest grade of defilement, and likewise when becoming free from the desire realm's defilement up through the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all. Other masters hold:

it is a never-before-attained path, since this path has, from beginningless time onward, never once been practiced or attained, and arises only for a noble one. They explain the matter thus: when a noble one uses the mundane path to become free from the very topmost grade of the defilement abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, he obtains, with respect to that very topmost grade of dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, two kinds of liberation-attainment — a mundane attainment and an uncontaminated attainment. The mundane attainment is a never-before-attained one; the uncontaminated attainment belongs to the noble-path class, since at the very moment the mundane path becomes currently manifest, it simultaneously cultivates the future uncontaminated path as well. With respect to the topmost grade of dharma abandoned by seeing in the desire realm, he obtains no liberation-attainment at all: he does not obtain the mundane attainment, since the never-before-attained path is not the antidote for that dharma; and he does not obtain the uncontaminated attainment, since it has already been obtained beforehand. The very same pattern holds when becoming free from the topmost grade down through the middling-and-lower grade of defilement, and likewise when becoming free from the eight grades abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, the eight grades abandoned by cultivation in the first dhyāna, and so on down through the eight grades abandoned by cultivation in the sphere of nothing-at-all. At the moment of the path of liberation belonging to the ninth and final grade abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, one cultivates, for the future, both the previously-attained and the never-before-attained kinds of mundane path — at that time, with respect to the dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, one obtains three kinds of liberation-attainment: first, a mundane previously-attained attainment, namely of the previously-attained-path class; second, a mundane never-before-attained attainment, namely of the never-before-attained-path class; and third, an uncontaminated attainment, namely of the noble-path class. With respect to the dharma abandoned by seeing in the desire realm, one obtains two kinds of liberation-attainment, excluding only the never-before-attained mundane attainment. Question: how is it known that, at this ninth path of liberation, one is able to cultivate, for the future, both the previously-attained and never-before-attained kinds of mundane path? Answer: because it is stated that whoever presently possesses the mind-reading knowledge must certainly also possess the past mind-reading knowledge. Question: why is it that, at the moment of becoming free from the defilement of the first eight grades, one cultivates only the never-before-attained path, while at the moment of the path of liberation belonging to the ninth grade, one cultivates both the previously-attained and the never-before-attained path? Answer: the path of abandoning a defilement and the ground of the attainment it draws forth are likewise different in each case — the path of abandoning a defilement is always of the never-before-attained kind, and what it cultivates for the future is likewise never-before-attained; whereas once the ground itself has been attained, even though the presently-manifest path of abandoning the defilement is still never-before-attained, it has nonetheless already obtained the fundamental ground, and so can cultivate for the future both the previously-attained and the never-before-attained path alike. The very same pattern holds for becoming free from the ninth grade of defilement in the desire realm clear through the ninth grade of defilement in the sphere of nothing-at-all. The verdict: it should be said that when a noble one uses the mundane path to become free from the defilement of any given ground, it should be called a never-before-attained path, since it has never previously been obtained and arises only for a noble one; yet for the future, one cultivates both the previously-attained and the never-before-attained path alike, since what is being counteracted is the very same in both cases. It should accordingly be said: when a noble one uses the mundane path to become free from the very topmost grade of the defilement abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, he obtains, with respect to that very topmost grade of dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, three kinds of liberation-attainment — first, a mundane previously-attained attainment, namely of the previously-attained-path class; second, a mundane never-before-attained attainment, namely of the never-before-attained-path class; and third,

an uncontaminated attainment, namely of the noble-path class. With respect to the topmost grade of dharma abandoned by seeing in the desire realm, he obtains only one kind of liberation-attainment, namely the previously-attained mundane attainment — the never-before-attained attainment is not obtained, since the never-before-attained path is not the antidote for that dharma; nor is the uncontaminated attainment obtained, since it has already been obtained beforehand. The very same pattern holds when becoming free from the topmost grade down through the very lowest grade of defilement, and likewise when becoming free from the desire realm's defilement up through the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all. It is for this reason that one asks: is there ever a case of one who has not regressed, has not lost a fruit, has not refined his faculties, for whom the path of seeing is not currently manifest, and who is not even of the ordinary-worldling class, and yet who obtains a liberation-attainment with respect to a dharma abandoned by seeing? Answer: yes — namely, precisely the case just described, with the sole exception of becoming free from the sixth and the ninth grade of the defilement of desire.

On the basis of the meaning just explained, it should likewise be asked: is there ever a case of a liberation-attainment being obtained without being relinquished, or being relinquished without being obtained? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. There is a liberation-attainment obtained without being relinquished — namely, that of ordinary worldlings at the moment of becoming free from the desire realm's defilement up through the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all,

and that of noble ones at the moment of becoming free from a defilement without thereby attaining a fruit. There is a liberation-attainment relinquished without being obtained — namely, that of ordinary worldlings at the moment of regressing from their freedom from the desire realm's defilement up through the defilement of the sphere of nothing-at-all, and that of noble ones at the moment of regressing without thereby losing a fruit; also, at the moment of dying in the desire realm and being reborn in the second dhyāna or above, or of dying in the first dhyāna and being reborn in the second dhyāna or above, and so on down to dying in the sphere of nothing-at-all and being reborn in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, or of dying in any ground of the form or formless realm and being reborn in the desire realm. There is a liberation-attainment both obtained and relinquished — namely, at the moment of progressively attaining any of the four śramaṇa-fruits, at the moment a follower-through-faith refines his faculties and becomes a follower-through-vision, and at the moment a regression-prone or lineage-determined arhat and the like refines his faculties and becomes an unshakeable one; also at the moment of regressing from freedom from a defilement, or from one's own lineage-determination, and at the moment of attaining the second, third, or fourth śramaṇa-fruit, or of dying in an upper ground of the form or formless realm and being reborn in a lower ground. There is a liberation-attainment neither obtained nor relinquished — namely, every case excluded from those just described. Question: suppose one has previously become free from the first five grades of defilement abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, and only afterward enters the state of correctly determined liberation from birth: at the moment the patient acceptance of the knowledge of suffering-in-the-Dharma arises, one obtains an uncontaminated liberation-attainment with respect to both the five grades of dharma abandoned by seeing suffering already previously abandoned and the four further grades of dharma abandoned by seeing suffering now being abandoned; and so on clear through to the moment the knowledge of the path-in-Dharma arises, one obtains an uncontaminated liberation-attainment with respect to both the five grades of dharma abandoned by seeing the path already previously abandoned and the four further grades of dharma abandoned by seeing the path now being abandoned; and at the moment the class-knowledge of the path arises, one obtains an uncontaminated liberation-attainment with respect to every dharma abandoned by seeing across all three realms. As for that earlier five grades of dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm which had already previously been abandoned, when is its uncontaminated liberation-attainment then obtained? The Venerable Saṃghavasu holds: it is obtained at the moment of the class-knowledge of the path, since it is at that very moment that one is named a stream-enterer, and also named one approaching the once-returner's fruit. This position is untenable — why so? Because at that very moment one has only just attained the stream-enterer's fruit, and has not yet given rise to even a single instant of the path that approaches the once-returner's fruit — how, then, could one properly speak of an "approach to the once-returner's fruit"? Others hold: it is obtained at the moment of undertaking the preparatory path toward the once-returner's fruit, since that moment is subsumed under the approach to the once-returner's fruit. Yet other masters hold: it is obtained at the moment of attaining the once-returner's fruit, since it is while abiding in the sixth uninterrupted path that one is able to draw forth the uncontaminated liberation-attainment of the dharma abandoned by seeing across all three realms together with the first six grades of dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, thereby giving rise to the attainment of the once-returner's fruit. According to this last account, from the stream-enterer's fruit one invariably then gives rise to the further, advancing path, and it is at the very moment that path becomes currently manifest that this attainment is obtained, since in rising from a lower fruit toward the further, advancing path, one must necessarily cultivate the antidote-path for whatever higher-level bonds had already previously been abandoned. Question: is there ever a single instant in which, with respect to an uncontaminated liberation-attainment, the body bears witness to it yet wisdom does not perceive it, or wisdom perceives it yet the body does not bear witness to it, and so on through all four alternatives? Answer: yes — namely, at the very moment the patient acceptance of the class-knowledge of the path ceases and the class-knowledge of the path itself arises, a full tetralemma should be formed. There is an uncontaminated liberation-attainment which the body bears witness to yet wisdom does not perceive — namely, the uncontaminated liberation-attainment of the dharma abandoned by seeing in the desire realm. There is an uncontaminated liberation-attainment which wisdom perceives yet the body does not bear witness to — namely, the uncontaminated liberation-attainment of the dharma abandoned by cultivation in the form and formless realms. There is an uncontaminated liberation-attainment which the body bears witness to and which wisdom also perceives — namely, the uncontaminated liberation-attainment of the dharma abandoned by seeing in the form and formless realms. There is an uncontaminated liberation-attainment which the body does not bear witness to and which wisdom also does not perceive —

namely, the uncontaminated liberation-attainment of the dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. Question: is there ever a single instant in which, with respect to the five faculties of faith and the rest, one obtains without relinquishing, or relinquishes without obtaining, and so on through all four alternatives? Answer: yes — namely, when a noble one becoming free from the desire realm's defilement is abiding at the final uninterrupted path, a full tetralemma should be formed. As for obtaining without relinquishing: this refers to the faculties of faith and the rest subsumed under the mundane path of the three grounds and the uncontaminated path of the two grounds. As for relinquishing without obtaining: this refers to the faculties of faith and the rest co-arisen with the desire realm's regret and displeasure-faculty. As for both obtaining and relinquishing: this refers to the faculties of faith and the rest subsumed under the uncontaminated path of the proximate-access ground — one relinquishes those subsumed under the uninterrupted path, and obtains those subsumed under the path of liberation. As for neither obtaining nor relinquishing: this refers to every case excluded from those just described. Question: if a dharma is past, is its attainment likewise past? Conversely, if an attainment is past, is the dharma it attains likewise past? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. There is a dharma that is past whose attainment is not past — namely, a past dharma belonging to a sentient being whose attainment lies in the future or the present. There is an attainment that is past whose dharma is not past — namely, a past attainment that attains a future or present dharma belonging to a sentient being, or that attains analytical or non-analytical cessation. There is a dharma that is past whose attainment is likewise past — namely, a past dharma belonging to a sentient being whose attainment lies in the past. There is a dharma that is not past whose attainment is likewise not past — namely, a future or present dharma belonging to a sentient being whose attainment lies in the future or the present, together with analytical and non-analytical cessation. Just as the tetralemma was formed for the past, so too should a tetralemma be formed, according to the same principle, for the future and for the present, each in turn. Question: if a dharma lies in the past, does that dharma have a past attainment? Conversely, if a dharma has a past attainment, does that dharma lie in the past? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. There is a dharma that lies in the past which has no past attainment — namely, a past dharma not belonging to any sentient being. There is a dharma that has a past attainment which does not itself lie in the past — namely, analytical and non-analytical cessation,

together with a future or present dharma belonging to a sentient being, that has a past attainment. There is a dharma that lies in the past which likewise has a past attainment —

namely, a past dharma belonging to a sentient being. There is a dharma that does not lie in the past and likewise has no past attainment — namely, a future or present dharma not belonging to any sentient being, together with space, an unconditioned dharma, and a future or present dharma belonging to a sentient being, together with analytical and non-analytical cessation, that has no past attainment. Just as the tetralemma was formed for the past, so too should a tetralemma be formed, according to the same principle, for the future and for the present, each in turn. Question: if a dharma does not lie in the past, does that dharma have no past attainment? Conversely, if a dharma has no past attainment, does that dharma not lie in the past? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed — the second alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the first alternative of this one; the first alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the second alternative of this one; the fourth alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the third alternative of this one; and the third alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the fourth alternative of this one — this should be understood accordingly. Just as the tetralemma was formed for the past, so too should a tetralemma be formed, according to the same principle, for the future and for the present, each in turn. Question: if a dharma has attainment, does that dharma have liberation-attainment? Conversely, if a dharma has liberation-attainment, does that dharma have attainment?

Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed. There is a dharma that has attainment which has no liberation-attainment — namely, an uncontaminated conditioned dharma, together with analytical and non-analytical cessation. There is a dharma that has liberation-attainment which has no attainment — namely, a dharma not belonging to any sentient being.

There is a dharma that has attainment which likewise has liberation-attainment — namely, a contaminated dharma belonging to a sentient being. There is a dharma that has no attainment which likewise has no liberation-attainment — namely, space, an unconditioned dharma. Question: if a dharma has no attainment, does that dharma have no liberation-attainment? Conversely, if a dharma has no liberation-attainment, does that dharma have no attainment? Answer: a full tetralemma should be formed — the second alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the first alternative of this one; the first alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the second alternative of this one; the fourth alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the third alternative of this one; and the third alternative of the earlier tetralemma becomes the fourth alternative of this one — this should be understood accordingly.

Question: if a dharma is to be cultivated, is its attainment likewise to be cultivated? Conversely, if a dharma's attainment is to be cultivated, is that dharma likewise to be cultivated? Answer: if a dharma is to be cultivated, its attainment is likewise to be cultivated. There is a dharma whose attainment is to be cultivated even though the dharma itself is not to be cultivated — namely, analytical cessation. Question: if a dharma is to be abandoned, is its attainment likewise to be abandoned? Conversely, if a dharma's attainment is to be abandoned, is that dharma likewise to be abandoned? Answer: if a dharma is to be abandoned, its attainment is likewise to be abandoned. There is a dharma whose attainment is to be abandoned even though the dharma itself is not to be abandoned — namely, one portion of analytical cessation, together with non-analytical cessation. Question: if a dharma is to be wearied of,

is its attainment likewise to be wearied of? Conversely, if a dharma's attainment is to be wearied of, is that dharma likewise to be wearied of? Answer: if a dharma is to be wearied of, its attainment is likewise to be wearied of. There is a dharma whose attainment is to be wearied of even though the dharma itself is not to be wearied of — namely, one portion of analytical cessation, together with non-analytical cessation. Question: why is it that an attainment follows the dharma it attains in becoming wholesome and the like, yet does not follow it in becoming matter and the like? Answer: being wholesome and the like is a shared category among dharmas, and shared categories among dharmas can travel together in mutual accordance; being matter and the like, however, is a dharma's own particular substance, and a dharma's own particular substance admits of no such mutual accordance. Others hold: being wholesome and the like is a shared characteristic that can travel along with a dharma, whereas being matter and the like is a dharma's own particular characteristic that admits of no such traveling-along. Question: why is it that attainments necessarily follow the dharma they attain in being fixed as wholesome and the like, yet do not necessarily follow it in being fixed as past and the like? Answer: the temporal course run by dharmas that are attained is itself unfixed, and so the temporal course run by the attainment that attains it is likewise unfixed; whereas the moral quality possessed by dharmas that are attained is itself fixed, and so the moral quality possessed by the attainment that attains it is likewise fixed. Question: by how many kinds of consciousness is attainment cognized, by how many kinds of knowledge is it known, and by how many kinds of latent defilement is it accompanied by proclivity? Answer: attainment is cognized by a single consciousness, namely mental consciousness, since it is subsumed under the dharma-sense-element and the dharma-sense-base, and belongs to the aggregate of formations. It is known by eight kinds of knowledge, excluding only the knowledge of cessation and the mind-reading knowledge, since it is a conditioned, dissociated dharma. It is accompanied by the proclivity of every latent defilement, of all three realms and all five categories, that takes a contaminated object as its condition, since no latent defilement is ever directly associated with attainment itself. Question: by how many kinds of consciousness is non-attainment cognized, by how many kinds of knowledge is it known, and by how many kinds of latent defilement is it accompanied by proclivity? Answer: non-attainment is cognized by a single consciousness, namely mental consciousness, since it too is subsumed under the dharma-sense-element and the dharma-sense-base, and belongs to the aggregate of formations. It is known by seven kinds of knowledge, excluding the knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of the path, and the mind-reading knowledge, since it is a contaminated, dissociated dharma. It is accompanied by the proclivity of the latent defilements abandoned by cultivation in the three realms, together with every universally-operating latent defilement, since non-attainment is exclusively abandoned by cultivation. Question: is there ever a case of relinquishing attainment without thereby gaining non-attainment? Answer: yes — namely, at the moment of entering final nirvāṇa without remainder, one relinquishes the attainment of every dharma, yet does not thereby gain non-attainment, since the very basis on which non-attainment depends has itself been cut off. Question: is there ever a case of a dharma that first gives rise to non-attainment, and, once attainment has arisen, never again gives rise to non-attainment? Answer: yes — namely, analytical cessation, and the knowledge of non-arising and the like, for from the moment attainment is first obtained clear through to the moment immediately preceding final nirvāṇa without remainder, one continuously possesses them without interruption. Question: is there ever a case of a dharma that originally has attainment but no non-attainment at all? Some hold: no, since whatever has attainment must necessarily also have non-attainment. Others hold: yes — as with the mundane wisdom bordering on the three kinds of knowledge, and the like; non-analytical cessation, too, originally has attainment but no non-attainment, since it is by its own nature decisively never to arise. Question: just as there is a single attainment capable of attaining both a dharma and its attainment-of-attainment together, is there likewise a single non-attainment capable of causing the relinquishing of both a dharma and its own non-attainment-of-non-attainment together? Answer: no, since there is no such thing as a non-attainment of a non-attainment occurring at the same time, given that a currently-manifest non-attainment must necessarily itself already be possessed. Question: is there ever a case of a dharma that has neither attainment nor non-attainment, and yet, once that dharma has ceased, comes to have both attainment and non-attainment? Answer: yes — namely, every dharma that does not belong to any sentient being.