The Seven Sage-Destinies

As a sūtra states: the Buddha told the monks, "there are seven sage-destinies, capable of progressing to sever the remaining fetters and attain parinirvāṇa." Question: on what basis are the seven sage-destinies established — is it by realm and ascetic fruit, by ground and station, or by faculty and affliction-grade? And, granting any of these, what fault would follow? If established by realm and ascetic fruit, then only a single one ought to be spoken of — namely, the non-returner who proceeds through the form realm. If established by ground and station, then only four, or else sixteen, ought to be spoken of. If established by faculty and affliction-grade, then nine ought to be spoken of, since each of these has nine grades of its own. Answer: none of these three grounds is what establishes them — rather, the seven kinds are established solely on the basis of superior advancement within the categories of arising and non-arising. Whatever basis establishes the first grade of the arising type establishes the first grade of the non-arising type as well; whatever basis establishes the second grade of the arising type establishes the second grade of the non-arising type as well; and whatever basis establishes the third grade of the arising type establishes the third grade of the non-arising type as well — and then, furthermore, since the meaning of superior advancement is itself most excellent in the upstream type, it is established as a single seventh category on its own, and it is on this basis that the seven sage-destinies are established. That is, among the arising type, there is one who possesses both the diligently-cultivated path and the swiftly-advancing path; one who possesses the diligently-cultivated path but not the swiftly-advancing path; and one who possesses neither the diligently-cultivated path nor the swiftly-advancing path — the first being the first grade, the second the second grade, and the third the third grade; and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well. Furthermore, since the meaning of superior advancement is itself most excellent in the upstream type, it is established as a single category on its own, and it is on this basis that the seven sage-destinies are established. Furthermore, among the arising type, there is one of superior faculty, one of middling faculty, and one of inferior faculty, corresponding in turn to the three grades — and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well, the rest being exactly as explained above.

and the corresponding distinction in affliction, inverted accordingly, should likewise be explained in the same way. Furthermore, among the arising type, there is one of superior-grade path, one of middling-grade path, and one of inferior-grade path, corresponding in turn to the three grades — and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well, the rest being exactly as explained above. Furthermore, among the arising type, there is one of superior-grade karma, one of middling-grade karma, and one of inferior-grade karma, corresponding in turn to the three grades — this is stated with reference to uncontaminated karma; if stated with reference to contaminated karma, then the order is reversed, with the last grade becoming the first, the middle grade remaining second, and the first grade becoming third — and the very same holds for the non-arising type as well, the rest being exactly as explained above. Others hold: among the arising type, there is one of overwhelming diligence who has also attained excellent wisdom; one of overwhelming diligence who has not attained excellent wisdom; and one who has attained excellent wisdom but is not overwhelmingly diligent, corresponding in turn to the three grades — and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well, the rest being exactly as explained above. Others hold: among the arising type, there is one of constant preparatory effort who is also capable of sudden preparatory effort; one of constant preparatory effort who is not capable of sudden preparatory effort; and one capable of sudden preparatory effort but not of constant preparatory effort, corresponding in turn to the three grades — and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well, the rest being exactly as explained above. Others hold: among the arising type, there is one who perceives the superior grade of fault in birth-and-death; one who perceives the middling grade of fault; and one who perceives the inferior grade of fault, corresponding in turn to the three grades — and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well,

the rest being exactly as explained above; and the corresponding distinction in the excellent-quality resolve one forms toward nirvāṇa should likewise be explained in the same way. Others hold: among the arising type, there is one of superior-grade calm and insight, one of middling-grade, and one of inferior-grade, corresponding in turn to the three grades — and the very same three grades hold for the non-arising type as well,

the rest being exactly as explained above; and the corresponding distinction among the remaining wholesome roots should likewise be explained in this same way. Others hold: the World-Honored One, in order to display seven stages, seven dispositions, seven gateways, seven successive steps, seven traces, and seven paths by which one transcends the fetters abandoned through cultivation belonging to the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception — difficult to sever, difficult to destroy — and attains the fruit of arhatship, speaks of these very seven sage-destinies.

Question: just as the arising and non-arising types each have three sub-kinds, the upstream type, too, has three sub-kinds — namely, fully-transcending, half-transcending, and dying-in-every-station — why, then, is it spoken of as only a single category? Answer: the arising and non-arising types are each a single, continuous existence, and, since the distinctions in stage within them are difficult to discern, the treatise wishes to make them known, and so speaks of three sub-kinds for each; whereas the upstream type's own three sub-kinds distinguish themselves readily and are easily known on their own, and it is for this reason that, following the principle that its own superior advancement is most excellent, it is spoken of together as a single category. Furthermore, the arising and non-arising types both involve only a single, brief span of existence, and the distinctions between them are minor and their boundaries are easily discerned; whereas the upstream type's own duration is long, its distinctions are numerous, and its boundaries are difficult to discern, and it is for this reason that it is established together as a single category. Furthermore, the arising and non-arising types share a certain equality of meaning, while the upstream type has a meaning all its own, and the treatise, wishing to display these two textual treatments in mutual contrast, speaks of them in just this way. Furthermore, the arising and non-arising types' own sage-destiny characteristics manifest readily and are easily understood, since they proceed swiftly toward parinirvāṇa, and it is for this reason that each is divided into three; whereas the upstream type's own sage-destiny characteristics are subtle, hidden, and difficult to discern, since it still passes through many rounds of birth-and-death, and it is for this reason that it is spoken of together as only a single category.

Question: why does the sūtra illustrate the three sub-kinds of the non-arising type with three similes, but not do the same for the three sub-kinds of the arising type? Answer: in illustrating the three sub-kinds of the non-arising type with three similes, one should understand that the three sub-kinds of the arising type are already thereby implicitly displayed as well, and it is for this reason that the earlier passage states, "whatever basis establishes the first grade of the arising type establishes the first grade of the non-arising type as well," and so on at length. Furthermore, as for the non-arising type approaching his own destination, he is like a traveler upon a road: some, having traveled not yet far, already attain parinirvāṇa; some, having traveled a somewhat greater distance, attain parinirvāṇa; and some, having traveled very far indeed, attain parinirvāṇa just as they are on the very verge of reaching their destination. The World-Honored One therefore illustrates these three sub-kinds with three similes. As for the three sub-kinds of the arising type, however, each and every one of them has already actually reached its own destination, with no further distinction of distance yet to be traveled, and it is for this reason that no separate simile is given for them.

Furthermore, the three sub-kinds of the non-arising type are subtle, inconspicuous, and difficult to perceive and understand, and it is for this reason that they are illustrated with similes; the three sub-kinds of the arising type, by contrast, are coarse, conspicuous, and easily known, and are therefore not illustrated with similes. Furthermore, the three sub-kinds of the non-arising type belong properly to a realm-classification rather than a destiny-classification, whereas the arising type's own classification, though it belongs to a destiny, has a mark that is not itself fully complete, and it is for this reason that similes are used; the three sub-kinds of the arising type are not like this, and so no similes are used for them. Furthermore, the Buddha foresaw that, in future times, there would be those holding perverse views who would slander the very notion of the intermediate state — such as the Vibhajyavādin masters and the like — and so, wishing to settle the meaning of the intermediate state definitively, the Buddha illustrated the distinctions in cessation with three similes; since there is no such slander directed at the arising-type existence and the like, no similes are given for its own three sub-kinds. Furthermore, parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state is superior to parinirvāṇa upon rebirth and the rest in three respects: first, it undergoes less suffering; second, it more swiftly extinguishes the fire of affliction; and third, it more quickly casts off the burden of the aggregates — and it is for this reason that it is illustrated with three similes, whereas the arising type and the rest are not like this, and so no similes are given for them.

Question: by relying on the noble path of which ground does one who attains parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state proceed to sever the remaining fetters and attain the fruit of arhatship? Answer: he relies on the noble path of his own ground alone — that is, if he attains parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state while abiding at the level of the first dhyāna, he relies on the noble path of the first dhyāna; and so on, clear through, if he attains parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state while abiding at the level of the fourth dhyāna, he relies on the noble path of the fourth dhyāna. Question: once he has attained the fruit, is there also a case of his relying on the noble path of the stage of proximate access or the meditative interval? Answer: some hold that there is indeed such a case, namely, if he had previously attained the fruit of non-return by relying on that same level, he is now likewise capable of relying on it again. According to this latter account, however, it should instead be said that he does not rely on it at all — why so? Because this is simply the natural principle of the matter. Furthermore, because the span of time is so brief, he attains parinirvāṇa so swiftly once he has attained the fruit that there is no room for him to give rise to the uncontaminated of any other ground. Furthermore, the intermediate state is capable of according with the noble path only at the level of a fundamental ground, never at the level of a proximate-access ground, since the noble path belonging to a proximate-access ground is itself subsumed under the painful path, and is therefore difficult to manifest there. Furthermore, only a ground that possesses both concentration and rebirth allows one to give rise to its own noble path while abiding in the intermediate state — the stage of proximate access possesses concentration but not rebirth; the meditative interval, although it does have rebirth, is a rebirth belonging only to ordinary worldlings, not to noble ones; whereas the four fundamental dhyānas possess both concentration and rebirth, and it is for this reason that one abiding in the intermediate state gives rise to their own noble path. Question: why does he not give rise to the noble path of the formless spheres? Answer: because, at the earlier stage, he had not yet attained it, and, at the later stage, it would serve no purpose. Furthermore, because it is subsumed under a different ground, and is therefore difficult to manifest. Furthermore, because it is subsumed under the painful path, and he has no wish to give rise to it.

Question: why does the passage not speak of the stream-enterer or the once-returner as belonging to the sage-destinies? Answer: it ought to be mentioned, and its not being mentioned here should be understood as an implicit remainder of meaning.

Others hold: the World-Honored One, in speaking here of the seven sage-destinies, is praising, as it were, the middle son — for, on other occasions and in other contexts, he praises the eldest son instead, as a verse states:

"The arhat's own supreme bliss, / attained by a mind free of craving, / and by pride already severed, / and by the net of delusion eternally cut off" — and, on other occasions and in other contexts, he praises the youngest son instead, as explained at length in the Sūtra of the Pond Simile. Here, in this present passage, he is likewise praising the middle son, and it is for this reason that the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not mentioned. Others hold: the World-Honored One speaks of these seven sage-destinies precisely in order to distinguish them from the stream-enterer and the once-returner — that is, although the latter, too, are indeed given the name "sage," as a sūtra states, "what is meant by a sage? It refers to one who possesses the trainee's own right view, and so on clear through right concentration; what is meant by a superior sage? It refers to one who possesses the non-trainee's own right view, and so on clear through right concentration" — yet they cannot be named a "sage-destiny," since they still remain far off, and are not yet capable of drawing near to the superior sage. Only the non-returner is named both a "sage" and a "sage-destiny," since he is indeed a sage, and is also capable of drawing near to the superior sage — and it is for this reason that the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not sage-destinies. Others hold: within the trainee stage, only one who has already transcended his own realm and already attained the fruit is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner, although they have already attained their own fruit, have not yet transcended their realm. Others hold: within the trainee stage, only one who has already transcended his own realm and has eternally severed the unwholesome afflictions and karma is established as a sage-destiny — neither the stream-enterer nor the once-returner is like this.

Others hold: within the trainee stage, only one who has already attained his own fruit and has eternally severed the unwholesome afflictions and karma is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner are incapable of this, and so are not established as sage-destinies; and, just as with unwholesome afflictions and karma, so too with the afflictions and karma associated with shamelessness and lack of conscience that produce a doubled ripened result. Others hold: within the trainee stage, only one who has already transcended his own realm and has eternally severed the five lower fetters is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not like this. Others hold: within the trainee stage, only one who has already attained his own fruit and has eternally severed the five lower fetters is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not like this. Others hold: within the trainee stage, only one who has already eternally severed the dharmas shared in common with those who are not sages is established as a sage-destiny. What are these dharmas shared in common with those who are not sages? Namely, delighting in household life, cherishing one's own wife and children; craving attachment to bedding, clothing, food, and drink; delighting in adorning one's own body with every kind of flower-garland, necklace, and fragrant perfume; hoarding every manner of impure wealth, such as gold, silver, and jewels, granaries, fields, houses, slaves, servants, elephants, and horses; touching, with a defiled mind, this impure body composed of nothing but a heap of bones and every manner of foulness, while forming the perception of its purity, and habitually indulging in sexual matters; and, at times, giving rise to anger, striking others with one's fists, and committing every kind of harmful, tormenting act against other sentient beings. The stream-enterer and the once-returner still retain these very things, and it is for this reason that they are not said to belong among the sage-destinies. Others hold: only one within the trainee stage who no longer enters the dark prison-house of the mother's womb, there to receive every manner of impurity and dwell suspended between the raw and cooked portions of the body's own formation, is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner still undergo precisely this, and it is for this reason that they are not established among the seven sage-destinies. The Venerable Ghoṣa states: only a trainee who has already severed craving and hatred for the desire realm, and no longer undergoes the constricting suffering of the mother's womb, is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not like this. Others hold: only a trainee whose mind is no longer disturbed by agreeable or disagreeable objects is established as a sage-destiny.

The stream-enterer and the once-returner are not like this. Others hold: only one who proceeds toward an upward rebirth and never regresses is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not like this. Others hold: only a trainee who has already attained the mixed cultivation of dhyāna and, even should he regress, never entirely loses that dhyāna, is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not like this. Others hold: only a trainee who engages exclusively in the dharmas proper to a sage, and never engages in the dharmas improper to a sage, is established as a sage-destiny — the stream-enterer and the once-returner still engage in the dharmas improper to a sage, and it is for this reason that the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not established as sage-destinies. Question: the non-returner who proceeds through the formless realm is superior to the non-returner who proceeds through the form realm in five respects — namely, superior realm, superior ground, superior severance of affliction, superior diminishment of the aggregates, and superior meditative attainment — why, then, is he not established as a sage-destiny? Answer: it ought to be mentioned, and its not being mentioned here should be understood as an implicit remainder of meaning. Others hold: only what is coarse, conspicuous, and easily understood is established as a sage-destiny — the formless-realm non-returner is not clearly manifest in this way, and it is for this reason that he is not mentioned. Others hold: the Buddha, wishing to encourage noble ones still defiled in the many-fault-ridden desire realm, not yet free of it, to swiftly become free of it, speaks of the form-realm non-returner as a sage-destiny; he does not, however, need to encourage noble ones already defiled only in the few-fault form realm, not yet free of it, to swiftly become free of it, and it is for this reason that he does not speak of the formless-realm non-returner as a sage-destiny. Others hold: only one who possesses a physical body, dwells within a physical station, and displays tranquil, dignified comportment in his own coming and going, such that others can recognize him as a sage, is established as a sage-destiny — one who proceeds through the formless realm has no such thing, and it is for this reason that he is not established as a sage-destiny. Others hold: only where the five non-returners can be established, allowing the seven sage-destinies to be posited, is one established as a sage-destiny — the formless-realm non-returner does not possess all five of these types, and the seven sage-destinies cannot be posited for him, and it is for this reason that he is not mentioned. Others hold: only a realm where solely noble ones are born is established as a sage-destiny — the formless realm is not like this. Others hold: only one who has already attained the mixed cultivation of dhyāna and, even should he regress, never entirely loses that dhyāna, is established as a sage-destiny — one who proceeds through the formless realm is not like this. Others hold: only a realm already free of the dharmas improper to a sage, where various sages come and go and converse with one another, is established as a sage-destiny — the formless realm is not like this, and it is for this reason that it is not established as a sage-destiny. Question: why is the arhat not himself a sage-destiny? Answer: it ought to be said that the arhat, too, is a sage-destiny, and its not being said here should be understood as an implicit remainder of meaning. Furthermore, only one who proceeds toward an upward rebirth is established as a sage-destiny — the arhat has no further rebirth, and it is for this reason that he is not so established. Furthermore, only one who proceeds toward an upward fruit is established as a sage-destiny — the arhat is himself already the highest fruit, with no further, higher fruit to proceed toward, and it is for this reason that he is not so established. Question: the time-liberated arhat, too, proceeds toward an upward fruit — namely, seeking the unshakeable disposition — why, then, is he not a sage-destiny? Answer: he proceeds toward an upward disposition, not an upward fruit. Furthermore, only a noble one who still possesses affliction, yet does not possess the dharmas improper to a sage, is established as a sage-destiny — the arhat no longer possesses affliction at all, and it is for this reason that he is not so described. Furthermore, it is precisely because there are those within the trainee stage who still possess the dharmas improper to a sage that the seven sage-destinies are posited in contrast to them — this is not so for the non-trainee stage, and it is for this reason that he is not so described. Furthermore, the non-returner is a sage-destiny, while the arhat is a superior sage-destiny — were he, too, to be described merely as a sage-destiny, this would actually diminish him, and would not accord with how things truly are, and it is for this reason that he is not so described.

Question: as for the mixed cultivation of dhyāna spoken of here, what serves as its own self-nature? Answer: the five aggregates serve as its self-nature. Question: why is this called the mixed cultivation of dhyāna — what is this term "mixed" intended to display? Answer: it is called "mixed" because of pervasive scenting; it is called "mixed" because of combined scenting; it is called "mixed" because it produces adornment; and it is called "mixed" because it produces luminous purity. The masters of illustrative analogy say it is called "mixed" because it takes that very combination as its object. As for its being called "mixed" because of pervasive scenting: just as a robe placed within a single box becomes pervasively scented by incense, so too is the yoga practitioner — the two uncontaminated instants before and after pervasively scent the single contaminated instant that lies between them. As for its being called "mixed" because of combined scenting: just as flowers combined with sesame seeds and scented together cause the sesame to give off fragrance, so too is the yoga practitioner — the two neighboring uncontaminated instants intermingle their own scent into the single contaminated instant. As for its being called "mixed" because it produces adornment: just as scattering a multitude of flowers upon a stūpa makes it appear adorned and beautiful, so too does the practitioner scatter two uncontaminated instants upon a single contaminated instant, making it excellent and beautiful. As for its being called "mixed" because it produces luminous purity: just as placing gold and the like within a furnace, tempering and smelting it, causes it to become ever more luminous and pure, so too does the practitioner place a single contaminated instant within two uncontaminated instants,

repeatedly tempering it until it becomes ever more pure and excellent. As for its being called "mixed" because it takes that very combination as its object: those who hold this view say it is called "mixed" because the two uncontaminated instants take the single contaminated instant as their own object. As for realm: what is mixed-cultivated falls within the form realm, while what does the mixed-cultivating does not fall within any realm at all. As for ground: both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated belong to the four fundamental dhyāna grounds. Question: is there a mixed cultivation of the formless attainments? Answer: some hold that there is not, since it is difficult to perceive and too subtle there. Others hold that the Buddha does have a mixed cultivation of the formless attainments, though this is not something śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas can rely upon. As for the aspect taken: it takes the desire and form realms as its object.

Others hold: both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated operate by way of all sixteen noble aspects — why so? Because the noble aspects, arising immediately, are capable of giving rise to the noble path, and the noble path, arising immediately, in turn gives rise to the noble aspects once again. According to this latter account, what does the mixed-cultivating operates by way of all sixteen aspects,

as for what is mixed-cultivated, it may operate by way of all sixteen aspects, or by way of other aspects, such as the object taken by the immeasurables, the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, and the like. As for object: some hold that what does the mixed-cultivating takes what is mixed-cultivated as its own object, while what is mixed-cultivated has no fixed object of its own; according to this latter account, what does the mixed-cultivating takes the four noble truths as its object, while what is mixed-cultivated takes every dharma whatsoever as its object. As for mindfulness-foundation: some hold that both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated operate by way of the dharma-mindfulness-foundation alone; others hold that what is mixed-cultivated operates by way of all four mindfulness-foundations, while what does the mixed-cultivating operates by way of the dharma-mindfulness-foundation alone; according to this latter account, both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated may equally operate by way of all four mindfulness-foundations. As for knowledge: some hold that what does the mixed-cultivating is the class-knowledge of suffering and of origin, while what is mixed-cultivated is mundane wisdom; according to this latter account, what does the mixed-cultivating is the four dharma-knowledges and four class-knowledges, while what is mixed-cultivated is mundane wisdom — and, stated generally, a trainee possesses seven kinds of knowledge, while a non-trainee possesses nine, excluding the knowledge of others' minds. As for association with concentration: some hold that what does the mixed-cultivating is associated with the emptiness- and wishlessness-concentrations, while what is mixed-cultivated is not associated with any concentration at all; according to this latter account, what does the mixed-cultivating is associated with all three concentrations, while what is mixed-cultivated is not associated with any concentration at all. As for association with faculty: stated generally, both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated are associated with the three faculties of happiness, joy, and equanimity. As for past, future, and present: both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated fall within all three time-periods. As for the time-period taken as object: some hold that what does the mixed-cultivating takes the past and future as its object, while what is mixed-cultivated takes all three time-periods, as well as what lies outside time, as its object; according to this latter account, both take all three time-periods, as well as what lies outside time, as their object — since it has already been stated above that what does the mixed-cultivating takes the four truths as its object, there should be no divergent statement here. As for wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral: both what does the mixed-cultivating and what is mixed-cultivated are wholesome objects. As for the moral quality taken as object: both take all three moral qualities as their object. As for whether fettered to the three realms or unfettered: what is mixed-cultivated is fettered to the form realm, while what does the mixed-cultivating is unfettered. As for the fettered-or-unfettered status taken as object: both take what is fettered to all three realms, as well as what is unfettered, as their object. As for trainee, non-trainee, or neither: what does the mixed-cultivating may be either trainee or non-trainee, while what is mixed-cultivated belongs to neither. As for the trainee-status taken as object: both take all three categories as their object. As for abandoned-by-seeing, abandoned-by-cultivation, or unabandoned: what is mixed-cultivated is abandoned by cultivation, while what does the mixed-cultivating is unabandoned. As for the abandonment-status taken as object: both take all three categories as their object. As for taking a name or a meaning as object: both take names and meanings alike as their object. As for taking one's own continuum, another's continuum, or neither as object: both take all three as their object. As for the place where it arises: it arises in the desire and form realms — its very first arising, however, occurs only in the desire realm, among human beings in the three continents; once it has arisen here, whether one then regresses or not, one is later reborn in the form realm and gives rise to its manifestation once again there. As for whether attained through preparatory practice, through freedom from defilement, or through birth: the Buddha attains it through freedom from defilement, while everyone else attains it through preparatory practice. What, then, is this preparatory practice? It refers to a yoga practitioner who first enters the fourth dhyāna and gives rise to many uncontaminated instants in succession; from this, he then gives rise to many contaminated instants in succession; and after this, he again gives rise to many uncontaminated instants in succession — and, cycling back and forth in this way, the number gradually diminishes each time, until, at the very last, two uncontaminated instants are immediately followed by two contaminated instants manifesting before him, and these two contaminated instants are immediately followed once again by two uncontaminated instants manifesting before him. At this precise point, the preparatory practice of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna is said to be fully complete. From this point onward, without any further exertion, he becomes capable of following a single uncontaminated instant immediately with a single contaminated instant, and this, in turn, is immediately followed once again by a single uncontaminated instant — and, since the contaminated instant in between is thus intermingled with the uncontaminated instants before and after it, this is called the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, and it is at this point that the fundamental level of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna is said to be actually achieved. Having thus mixed-cultivated the fourth dhyāna, he then, riding upon this same momentum, becomes capable, as appropriate, of mixed-cultivating the lower three dhyānas as well — first relying on the desire realm, among human beings in the three continents, to mixed-cultivate the dhyānas in this way, and then, once reborn in the form realm, becoming capable once again, through the power of prior habituation, of mixed-cultivating the dhyānas as appropriate, exactly as before. Question: what kind of person engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna? Answer: it is a noble one, never an ordinary worldling, whether trainee or non-trainee — that is, the one liberated by conviction, the one who has arrived through insight, the time-liberated, and the non-time-liberated are all capable of the mixed cultivation. Question: why does he engage in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna? Answer: for three reasons: first, delight in the equipoise itself; second, fear of affliction; and third, delight in a favorable rebirth. "Delight in the equipoise" means doing so in order to dwell blissfully in the present life, or in order to enjoy the wealth of the noble Dharma, or in order to sport playfully in his own excellent qualities, or in order to reflect upon what he has previously accomplished, or in order to draw forth further excellent qualities. "Fear of affliction" means fearing that, should he regress and afflictions manifest before him, he would lose his own excellent qualities, or fearing that, should afflictions manifest before him upon regression, they would scorch his own body and mind. "Delight in a favorable rebirth" means delighting in being reborn into the five Pure Abodes, which are not shared with ordinary worldlings. The one liberated by conviction engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna for all three reasons in full; the one who has arrived through insight does so for two reasons, excluding fear of affliction, since he belongs to the disposition that never regresses; the time-liberated does so for two reasons, excluding delight in favorable rebirth, since he turns away from every kind of rebirth altogether; and the non-time-liberated does so for only a single reason, excluding both fear of affliction and delight in favorable rebirth, since he belongs to the disposition that never regresses, and turns away from every kind of rebirth altogether. Question: how many grades does the mixed cultivation of dhyāna have? Answer: it has five — first, the inferior grade; second, the middling grade; third, the superior grade; fourth, the superior-and-excellent, fully-complete grade; and fifth, the superior-and-utmost, fully-complete grade. Each and every one of these grades, at the stage of its own completion, involves three mind-moments — one contaminated mind-moment and two uncontaminated mind-moments. Stated as a whole, then, there are fifteen mind-moments in total, five of them contaminated and ten uncontaminated. Question: are these fifteen mind-moments accompanied by the actual absorption into concentration, or not? Answer: some hold that they are not accompanied by absorption,

just as the path of seeing manifests in continuous succession without such absorption. Others hold that they are indeed accompanied by absorption, just as the path of cultivation repeatedly gives rise to and enters absorption again and again. According to this latter account, the matter is not fixed: in some cases, one is capable of turning through all fifteen mind-moments in continuous succession without any absorption at all; while, in other cases, absorption does occur — sometimes after only three mind-moments have arisen, sometimes after six, sometimes after nine, and sometimes after twelve — and so, throughout these five grades, absorption may or may not occur at various points before the mixed cultivation is fully completed. Question: of these fifteen mind-moments, how many have been previously attained, and how many have never before been attained? Answer: some hold that five have never before been attained, and ten have been previously attained,

that is, at the very moment the first five manifest before one, the remaining ten are still cultivated only as future dharmas. Others hold that ten have never before been attained, and five have been previously attained — that is, at the very moment the first ten manifest before one, the last five are still cultivated only as future dharmas. According to this latter account, the matter is not fixed: in some cases, all fifteen have never before been attained; in other cases, all fifteen have been previously attained; and in yet other cases, a portion has been previously attained while a portion has never before been attained. Question: of these fifteen mind-moments, how many are the leading, actively-turned moment, and how many merely follow along? Answer: some hold that the first five are the leading moment and the last ten merely follow along; others hold that the first ten are the leading moment and the last five merely follow along. According to this latter account, the matter is not fixed: in some cases, all are the leading moment; in other cases, all merely follow along; and in yet other cases, a portion is the leading moment while a portion merely follows along. Question: if a given category is the leading moment, does the very same category also follow along, or does a different category follow along instead? Answer: some hold that, if a given category is the leading moment, that very same category also follows along — that is, only when the knowledge, object, aspect, and mindfulness-foundation involved accord with one another, before and after, does the mixed cultivation come about, and it is for this reason that, if a given category is the leading moment, that very same category must also follow along, since otherwise it would obstruct the mixed cultivation itself. Others hold that, if a given category is the leading moment, a different category follows along instead — that is, only when the knowledge, object, aspect, and mindfulness-foundation involved alternate between differing categories does the mixed cultivation come about, and it is for this reason that, if a given category is the leading moment, a different category must follow along, since otherwise this would contradict the very meaning of "mixed" cultivation. According to this latter account, the matter is not fixed: that is, if dharma-knowledge is the leading moment, either dharma-knowledge or class-knowledge may follow along; and if class-knowledge is the leading moment, either class-knowledge or dharma-knowledge may follow along.

The very same holds for the other kinds of knowledge as well. If taking a conditioned dharma as object is the leading moment, then either taking a conditioned or an unconditioned dharma as object may follow along; the very same holds for taking any other kind of dharma as object as well. If the aspect of impermanence is the leading moment, then either the aspect of impermanence or of suffering and the like may follow along; the very same holds for the other aspects as well. If the body-mindfulness-foundation is the leading moment, then either the body-mindfulness-foundation or the feeling-mindfulness-foundation and the like may follow along; the very same holds for the other mindfulness-foundations as well. Question: if the leading moment and what follows along sometimes differ, then, since the aspect and object involved become mixed and confused, why does this not obstruct the mixed cultivation of dhyāna itself? Answer: because, at the earlier stage of preparatory practice, this has already been thoroughly cultivated, and the very pathway has already been established — even though there is indeed a kind of mixing and confusion, it does not obstruct the mixed cultivation itself, just as, within the path of seeing and the mundane path's own admixture of defilement, although the aspect and object involved are mixed together across upper and lower grounds, no obstruction arises there either; the very same holds true here as well. Question: if the leading moment and what follows along are sometimes the very same, then how can this still be called the "mixed" cultivation of dhyāna, since it is not named "mixed" merely because a single category of aspect and object is involved? Answer: it is the very alternation and intermingling of the contaminated and the uncontaminated that is called "mixed" cultivation — it is not named "mixed" simply because the knowledge and the like differ from one moment to the next. Question: why must the cultivation of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna necessarily involve the contaminated and the uncontaminated arising in alternation with one another? Answer: it is in order to display that one has attained mastery in entering and exiting both of these two kinds of dhyāna freely. Furthermore, it is in order to place the uncontaminated both before and after, scenting the contaminated instant in between and causing it to become ever more excellent and sublime, so as to be reborn into the Pure Abodes. Furthermore, ever since beginningless time, the pure dhyāna has been encroached upon and intermingled with the flavor-associated dhyāna, and one now wishes to cause it instead to enter and exit in mutual exchange with the uncontaminated dhyāna, so that the flavor-associated no longer intermingles with it, growing ever more distant through this successive process. Furthermore, when a practitioner has long dwelt within dhyāna, he becomes extremely nourished and grown, his entire body filled and dense, and he wishes to cause his own body to open and relax for a brief while, and it is for this reason that he gives rise to the contaminated intermingled with the uncontaminated. As for those who wish to mixed-cultivate all four dhyānas: they must first mixed-cultivate the fourth dhyāna, and, once this is fully complete, next mixed-cultivate the third dhyāna, then the second dhyāna, and finally the first dhyāna — for, without first mixed-cultivating the fourth dhyāna, one can never become capable of mixed-cultivating any lower ground at all. Question: since this discussion has now raised a further question, why must one necessarily mixed-cultivate the fourth dhyāna first, before becoming capable of cultivating the lower three grounds? Answer: the fourth dhyāna is the most fully complete among all the dhyānas, and serves as the most excellent basis for giving rise to excellent qualities; it is capable of drawing forth the most excellent pliancy and bliss; it causes the body it depends upon to become entirely filled and dense; it serves as the basis for a great many excellent qualities; it is an unshakeable concentration; it is the most excellent among blissful practices; and it possesses the greatest capability of all. Furthermore, the fourth dhyāna occupies the very middle position among the uncontaminated concentrations, having three grounds both above and below it. Furthermore, as many Tathāgatas, Arhats, and Perfectly Enlightened Ones as there are grains of sand in the Ganges have all relied upon the fourth dhyāna to attain unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. Furthermore, the fourth dhyāna alone possesses five kinds of cause and five kinds of fruit — the five kinds of cause being the five grades of mixed cultivation, and the five kinds of fruit being the five Pure Abode heavens. Question: how many grades does the mixed cultivation of the lower three dhyānas have? Answer: some hold:

only three grades — namely, inferior, middling, and superior — since the lower grounds have no five Pure Abodes of their own. According to this latter account, they, too, have five grades. Question: if they have no five kinds of fruit, why do they have five grades of cause? Answer: although they lack the five kinds of fruit, the very dharma of that concentration itself still admits of five grades. Furthermore, although the lower grounds lack the five Pure Abodes as their fruit, they nevertheless possess five grades of faculty. Question: since this discussion has now raised a further question, given that the lower three dhyānas do indeed have five grades of mixed cultivation,

why do they have no five Pure Abodes as their fruit? Answer: because they are not the proper field or vessel for it, and so on at length. Furthermore, a noble one seeks rebirth in the Pure Abodes precisely out of weariness with a station shared in common with ordinary worldlings — were there Pure Abodes at a lower ground, he would then be incapable of growing weary of and turning away from a station shared in common with ordinary worldlings,

since he would not yet have become free from the defilement of the station above. Furthermore, a noble one seeks rebirth in the Pure Abodes precisely because he wishes to transcend a station where ordinary worldlings, too, are born — were there Pure Abodes at a lower ground, he would then be incapable of transcending a station where ordinary worldlings are born, since ordinary worldlings would still be found above him. Furthermore, a noble one seeks rebirth in the Pure Abodes precisely out of weariness with a place of calamity — the lower three grounds all still contain calamity, and it is for this reason that they have no Pure Abodes. Furthermore, the excellent karma that draws forth the Pure Abodes produces an extremely long lifespan — were there Pure Abodes at a lower ground, then, at the moment the three cosmic calamities arose, would those fixed-lifespan beings there die, or not? If they were to die, their fixed lifespan ought never to be cut short prematurely; and if they were not to die, then the arising calamity would itself be obstructed and prevented — as it is said, if even a single sentient being remains in a given place, down even to the very egg of an ant, the calamity can never destroy that place at all. It is precisely in order to avoid such a fault that the lower grounds have no Pure Abodes. The Venerable Vasumitra states: why do the lower grounds have no Pure Abodes? Because it is only through the mixed cultivation of dhyāna that one is reborn into the Pure Abodes, and, at the very moment of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, one has necessarily already become free from the defilement of the lower three grounds — and one can never be reborn into a ground whose defilement one has already become free of — and it is for this reason that the Pure Abodes do not belong to the lower grounds. Moreover, only one of sharp faculties is capable of the mixed cultivation, and whoever is capable of the mixed cultivation is necessarily capable of swiftly transcending the impure lower grounds to reach the purest station of all, and it is for this reason that the lower grounds have no Pure Abodes.

Furthermore, one must have already attained the basis-ground of the boundary concentration before becoming capable of the mixed cultivation, and only one capable of the mixed cultivation is then reborn into that very place — and it is for this reason that the lower grounds have no Pure Abodes. The Venerable Elder states: beings of the lower grounds, for the most part, are reborn into an upper ground when the world-system is being destroyed, and are reborn into a lower ground when it is being reconstituted — those reborn into the Pure Abodes undergo no such thing, and it is for this reason that the lower grounds have no Pure Abode heaven. Question: why are the Pure Abodes exactly five in number, neither more nor less? The Venerable Pārśva states: this question ought not even to be raised. Why so? Because, were there either more or fewer, doubt would equally arise either way, and doubt alone can never be sufficient grounds for contradicting the true principle of the matter;

rather, according to the true meaning of the characteristics of the dharmas themselves, there should be exactly five, neither more nor less. Others hold: there are exactly five stations not shared in common with ordinary worldlings, and it is for this reason that a noble one's own birth-stations, too, are exactly five in number — the five stations not shared in common with ordinary worldlings being the three evil destinies, the northern continent, and the sphere of no-perception. Others hold: the mixed cultivation of dhyāna has exactly five grades, and it is for this reason that the Pure Abodes it draws forth are likewise exactly five in number. Question: why, then, does the mixed cultivation of dhyāna itself have exactly five grades, neither more nor fewer? Answer: because the very momentum of the mixed cultivation extends only that far — just as the path of seeing's own momentum extends to exactly fifteen mind-moments, neither more nor fewer, so too does the momentum of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna extend to exactly fifteen mind-moments as well, with no increase or decrease possible. Furthermore, the mixed cultivation of dhyāna is itself an excellent quality, not subsumed under the inferior or middling grades at all — there being only the superior, the superior-inferior, the superior-middling, the superior-superior, the superior-excellent, and the superior-utmost, and it is for this reason that there are exactly five. Certain other masters hold: the mixed cultivation of dhyāna is precisely the tempering and training of the five faculties beginning with faith, and, according to their own proper sequence, each one in turn becomes dominant, thereby forming five grades — and it is for this reason that there are exactly five, and it is because the mixed cultivation has exactly five grades that the Pure Abodes, too, are exactly five in number. Others hold: the fourth dhyāna has nine grades of wholesome root, which, in succession, produce rebirth in nine stations — namely, the lowest of the low wholesome root produces rebirth in Anabhraka; the lowest of the middle produces rebirth in Puṇyaprasava; and so on, clear through the highest of the high producing rebirth in Akaniṣṭha — and, among these various stations, no increase or decrease is possible, and it is for this reason that the Pure Abodes should be exactly five in number. Others hold: the fourth dhyāna has nine grades of affliction — if none of the nine grades has yet been suppressed at all, one is reborn in Anabhraka; if the highest of the high grade has been suppressed, one is reborn in Puṇyaprasava; and so on, clear through, if the lowest of the middle grade has been suppressed, one is reborn in Akaniṣṭha — there being no case of one who has suppressed only the lowest of the low grade and is thereby reborn, and it is for this reason that the Pure Abodes are exactly five kinds. Question: is there a case of one who engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna yet is not reborn into the Pure Abodes? Answer: there is — that is, having engaged in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, he may instead attain parinirvāṇa in this very life, or regress and be reborn into a lower ground, or advance further and be reborn into the formless realm — this refers to one who engages in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna without actually delighting in the Pure Abodes themselves. Question: is there a case of one who fully gives rise to all five grades of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, yet is reborn into Anabhraka and the like anyway? Answer: there is — that is, there is a case of one first reborn in Anabhraka, then reborn in Puṇyaprasava, then reborn in Bṛhatphala, and only afterward, in succession, reborn through all five Pure Abodes in turn.