Better to Fall Than to Peak Without Roots

As the Prajñaptiśāstra states, there are five Pure Abodes — namely, Avṛha, Atapa, Sudṛśa, Sudarśana, and Akaniṣṭha. What is meant by Avṛha? It is the shared class-nature belonging to a single kind of companion among the beings of Avṛha, attained by dependence, by substance, and by place, together with the neutral-and-unobstructed form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness of a being already born there — this is called Avṛha. Question: why is this heaven named Avṛha, "without affliction"? Answer: this is a mere conventional designation, a mere conventional notion, a name that is posited, a notion that is posited, established however one wishes, and need not necessarily correspond in every respect to its own name. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven have bodies free of affliction and minds free of affliction, experiencing throughout their entire existence a purely tranquil bliss unavailable to any lower ground, and it is for this reason that it is named without affliction. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven see with perfect clarity that suffering is truly suffering, that origin is truly origin, that cessation is truly cessation, and that the path is truly the path, being free of the coarse, heavy afflictions that arise on the lower grounds, and it is for this reason that it is named without affliction.

Furthermore, "affliction" here refers to "vast" — that is, Bṛhatphala itself; since this heaven is the very first to transcend that ground, it is named Avṛha. What is meant by Atapa? It is the shared class-nature belonging to a single kind of companion among the beings of Atapa, and so on at length, exactly as before. Question: why is this heaven named Atapa, "without heat"? Answer: this is a mere conventional designation, and so on at length, exactly as before. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven have bodies free of scorching heat and minds free of scorching heat, experiencing throughout their entire existence a purely cool bliss unavailable to any lower ground, and it is for this reason that it is named without heat. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven see with perfect clarity that suffering is truly suffering, and so on clear through the path being truly the path, being free of the scorching heat of affliction that arises on the lower grounds, and it is for this reason that it is named without heat. Furthermore, within Avṛha itself, being still in close proximity to the overwhelming fire of affliction arising from the ground below, it is still, in a sense, called "hot"; this heaven transcends even that, and it is for this reason that it is named without heat. What is meant by Sudṛśa? It is the shared class-nature belonging to a single kind of companion among the beings of Sudṛśa, and so on at length. Question: why is this heaven named Sudṛśa, "finely appearing"? Answer: this is a mere conventional designation, and so on at length. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven have a physical form that is dignified and excellent, surpassing that of the two heavens below, and it is for this reason that it is named finely appearing. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven see with perfect clarity that suffering is truly suffering, and so on clear through the path being truly the path, being free of every taint and turbidity, their minds pure and manifestly clear, and it is for this reason that it is named finely appearing. Furthermore, they have attained the superior grade of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, and the wholesome quality thereby attained is manifestly conspicuous, and it is for this reason that this heaven is named Sudṛśa. What is meant by Sudarśana? It is the shared class-nature belonging to a single kind of companion among the beings of Sudarśana, and so on at length. Question: why is this heaven named Sudarśana, "finely seen"? Answer: this is a mere conventional designation, and so on at length. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven have a physical form finer and more excellent still, delighted in by all who behold it, and it is for this reason that it is named finely seen. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven see with perfect clarity that suffering is truly suffering, and so on clear through the path being truly the path, being free of every taint and turbidity, their minds grown even purer and clearer still, and it is for this reason that it is named finely seen. Furthermore, they have attained the superior-and-excellent, fully-complete grade of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, and the wholesome dharma thereby attained is even more conspicuous still, and it is for this reason that this heaven is named Sudarśana. What is meant by Akaniṣṭha? It is the shared class-nature belonging to a single kind of companion among the beings of Akaniṣṭha, and so on at length.

Question: why is this heaven named Akaniṣṭha, "the highest point of form"? Answer: this is a mere conventional designation, and so on at length. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven have a physical form of the very highest excellence, surpassed by none, and it is for this reason that it is named the highest point of form. Furthermore, the beings of that heaven see with perfect clarity that suffering is truly suffering, and so on clear through the path being truly the path,

being free of every taint and turbidity to a degree that no other form-realm heaven can match, and it is for this reason that it is named the highest point of form. Furthermore, they have attained the superior-and-utmost, fully-complete grade of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, a wholesome root that no other form-realm heaven's own wholesome root can match, and it is for this reason that it is named the highest point of form. Furthermore, this heaven is the most venerable, the most excellent, and the very utmost within the entire realm of form, and it is for this reason that it is named the highest point of form. Furthermore, it is also named the highest point of obstruction, "obstruction" referring to accumulated matter — this heaven is the most venerable, the most excellent, and the very utmost with respect to this obstruction, and it is for this reason that it is named the highest point of obstruction. Furthermore, it is also named the highest peak, since it is both the very peak of everything possessing form, and also the very utmost point of all.

Question: is rebirth into the Pure Abode heavens drawn forth by karma, or by the mixed cultivation of dhyāna? And, granting either, what fault would follow? If it is by karma, then the mixed cultivation of dhyāna would be rendered entirely futile; if it is by the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, then this would contradict the Prakaraṇapāda's own statement, which says that one is reborn into the Pure Abode heavens through the mixed cultivation of dhyāna and through karma, and so on at length. Answer: some hold that it is drawn forth by karma. Question: would this not then render the mixed cultivation of dhyāna entirely futile? Answer: it is precisely through the mixed cultivation of dhyāna that the karma becomes determinate and fixed, and so it is not rendered futile. Furthermore, it is only after the mixed cultivation of dhyāna that one becomes capable of drawing forth that very volitional karma to manifest before one, and it is through this that one's own shared class-nature there is drawn forth. Certain other masters hold: it is by the mixed cultivation of dhyāna. Question: how, then, is the Prakaraṇapāda's own statement to be reconciled? Answer: what it calls "karma" there is precisely the mixed cultivation of dhyāna itself, spoken of in terms of karma. Furthermore, that treatise speaks first of the mixed cultivation of dhyāna in order to display one's earlier entry into that concentration, and speaks afterward of being reborn into the Pure Abodes through karma in order to display that, at the later stage, it is precisely through that power that one is reborn into the Pure Abodes. According to this latter account, it is both through the power of karma and through the mixed cultivation of dhyāna — that is, even should the volitional karma manifest, without the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, one still cannot be reborn there; and, even with the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, without the volitional karma manifesting, one likewise cannot be reborn there. It is for this reason that only when the volitional karma draws forth the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, causing it to become determinate and fixed, does one then become capable of being reborn there.

Are all trainees, without exception, engaged in training precisely in order to attain what they have not yet attained? And, conversely, is everyone engaged in training precisely in order to attain what they have not yet attained necessarily a trainee? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: the Sūtra to Śivaka serves as the very foundation of this treatise, for it states that a trainee is named "trainee" precisely because he trains in what is to be trained — and, lest doubt arise, thinking that a trainee is named "trainee" only at the very moment he is actively training in what is to be trained, and is not so named while merely abiding in his own nature,

or thinking that a non-trainee is named "non-trainee" only while merely abiding in his own nature, and is not so named at the very moment he is actively training in what is to be trained — this treatise is composed precisely in order to settle this doubt definitively, displaying that trainees, too, may abide in their own nature, and that non-trainees, too, may train in what is to be trained. There is a case of one who is a trainee yet is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained — this refers to a trainee abiding in his own nature. There are two conditions for being said to abide in one's own nature: first, guarding one's own excellent, wholesome nature without regression;

and second, guarding one's own portion of excellent quality without further advancing in cultivation. Here, only the latter — not further advancing in cultivation — is what is meant by "abiding in one's own nature." That is, a stream-enterer who does not further cultivate the preparatory practice for the fruit of once-return; a once-returner who does not further cultivate the preparatory practice for the fruit of non-return; a non-returner who does not further cultivate the preparatory practice for the fruit of arhatship; one liberated by conviction who does not seek to become one who has arrived through insight; and, more generally, any trainee who does not seek to give rise to a not-yet-attained contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the three-aspect contemplation of the mindfulness-foundations, the seven bases of skill, the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, or the totality-bases; who does not draw forth the superknowledges; who does not engage in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna; who does not enter the attainment of cessation; and who neither upholds, reads, nor recites the Sūtra, the Vinaya, or the Abhidharma, nor transmits them to others,

who does not dwell in a forest hermitage reflecting upon and contemplating the Sūtra, the Vinaya, or the Abhidharma, and who does not busy himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by a trainee who is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained. Question: for what reason does such a one not train in what is to be trained? Answer: it may be because of a prolonged illness,

or because he lacks the necessary requisites, and he reflects: "I have already crossed over countless rounds of birth-and-death, with only seven existences, or perhaps only a single existence, remaining"; or he reflects: "I have already emerged from the mire of desire, with only a small remainder of rebirth left in the upper realms"; and, being now afflicted by suffering, or lacking the necessary requisites, he thinks, "I might as well rest a little — why should I hasten to advance in further cultivation?" It is for these reasons that such a trainee does not train in what is to be trained. There is a case of one engaged in training in order to attain what he has not yet attained, who is nevertheless not himself a trainee — this refers to an arhat, or an ordinary worldling, advancing further to seek an even higher dharma. Here, "higher dharma" refers to an excellent quality — that is, the time-liberated arhat seeking to become the unshakeable type, and an arhat giving rise to a not-yet-attained contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, the three-aspect contemplation of the mindfulness-foundations, the seven bases of skill, the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless liberations, the bases of vanquishing, the totality-bases, drawing forth the superknowledges, engaging in the mixed cultivation of dhyāna, entering the attainment of cessation, giving rise to the unhindered understandings, non-contention, wish-knowledge, the boundary concentration, emptiness-within-emptiness, wishlessness-within-wishlessness, and signlessness-within-signlessness, upholding, reading, and reciting the Sūtra, the Vinaya, or the Abhidharma, whether transmitting them to others or dwelling in a forest hermitage reflecting upon and contemplating them; and an ordinary worldling seeking to become free from the defilement of the desire realm, the form realm, or a portion of the formless realm, or giving rise to the contemplation of impurity,

mindfulness of breathing, the mindfulness-foundations, the three-aspect contemplation, the seven bases of skill, warmth, peak, patient acceptance, or the supreme mundane dharma, the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, the totality-bases, drawing forth the superknowledges, entering the attainment of no-perception, upholding, reading, and reciting the Sūtra, the Vinaya, or the Abhidharma, whether transmitting them to others or dwelling in a forest hermitage reflecting upon and contemplating them, or busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by one engaged in training in order to attain what he has not yet attained who is nevertheless not himself a trainee. Question: why does an arhat still train in what is to be trained? Answer: although he no longer trains for the sake of severing affliction, he does so out of a genuine delight in excellent qualities. There is a case of one who is a trainee, and who is also training in order to attain what he has not yet attained — this refers to a trainee advancing further to seek a higher dharma, that is, a stream-enterer advancing further to cultivate the preparatory practice for the fruit of once-return, and so on at length, clear through busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by one who is both a trainee and is training in order to attain what he has not yet attained. There is a case of one who is neither a trainee, nor training in order to attain what he has not yet attained — this refers to an arhat, or an ordinary worldling, abiding in his own nature — that is, the time-liberated arhat who does not seek to become the unshakeable type, and so on at length, clear through not busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha; and an ordinary worldling who does not seek to become free from the desire realm's own defilement, and so on at length, clear through not busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by one who is neither a trainee nor training in order to attain what he has not yet attained.

Are all non-trainees, without exception, not training in order to attain what they have not yet attained? And, conversely, is everyone who is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained necessarily a non-trainee? Answer: a full tetralemma must be formed. There is a case of one who is a non-trainee, and who is not not-training in order to attain what he has not yet attained — that is, an arhat advancing further to seek a higher dharma, such as the time-liberated seeking to become the unshakeable type, or an arhat giving rise to a not-yet-attained contemplation of impurity or mindfulness of breathing, and so on at length, clear through busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by a non-trainee who is not not-training in order to attain what he has not yet attained. There is a case of one who is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained, who is nevertheless not himself a non-trainee — this refers to a trainee, or an ordinary worldling, abiding in his own nature, that is, a stream-enterer who does not further cultivate the preparatory practice for the fruit of once-return, and so on at length, clear through not busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha; and an ordinary worldling who does not seek to become free from the desire realm's own defilement, and so on at length, clear through not busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by one who is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained, who is nevertheless not a non-trainee. There is a case of one who is both a non-trainee and is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained — that is, an arhat abiding in his own nature, such as the time-liberated who does not seek to become the unshakeable type, or an arhat who does not seek to give rise to a not-yet-attained contemplation of impurity or mindfulness of breathing, and so on at length, clear through not busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by one who is both a non-trainee and is not training in order to attain what he has not yet attained. There is a case of one who is neither a non-trainee, nor not-training in order to attain what he has not yet attained — that is, a trainee, or an ordinary worldling, advancing further to seek a higher dharma, such as a stream-enterer advancing further to cultivate the preparatory practice for the fruit of once-return, and so on at length, clear through busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha; and an ordinary worldling seeking to become free from the desire realm's own defilement, and so on at length, clear through busying himself with the affairs of the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Saṅgha — this is what is meant by one who is neither a non-trainee, nor not-training in order to attain what he has not yet attained. Question: is a trainee named "trainee" because he trains in what is to be trained, or because he has attained the dharma of a trainee? And, granting either, what fault would follow? If a trainee is named "trainee" because he trains in what is to be trained, then how is this passage's own statement to be reconciled, where it speaks of a trainee abiding in his own nature? And if a trainee is named "trainee" because he has attained the dharma of a trainee, then how is the sūtra's own statement to be reconciled, where it says that a trainee is named "trainee" because he trains in what is to be trained? Answer: some hold: a trainee is named "trainee" because he has attained the dharma of a trainee — that is, whether he is actively training or not, so long as he possesses the dharma of a trainee, he is named a trainee. Question: if so, then how is the sūtra's own statement to be reconciled? Answer: that sūtra speaks only with reference to one presently engaged in training, and does not speak of every case. Furthermore, that sūtra speaks in this way with reference to the fact that a trainee's own resolve never ceases — that is, whether a trainee gives rise to a wholesome mind, or to an unwholesome or neutral mind, and whether he gives rise to preparatory effort or not, his own resolve as a trainee, in every case, never ceases or is set aside, since he never permanently abandons his own preparatory effort — just as a traveler upon a road, when he pauses briefly to rest, and another asks him, "where are you going?", answers, "I am going to such-and-such a place,"

and it is precisely because his resolve never ceases that he can still speak of "going," even while presently at rest — the very same holds true here as well. Others hold: a trainee is named "trainee" because he trains in what is to be trained. Question: if so, then how is this passage's own statement to be reconciled, where it speaks of a trainee abiding in his own nature? Answer: this is stated with reference to a temporary pause in preparatory effort — yet, since his resolve never abandons his own training, he is still called one who trains in what is to be trained. Furthermore, at the very moment a trainee abides in his own nature, although he does not give rise to the trainee's own mind and mental factors at that instant, his own attainment as a trainee nevertheless remains constantly in effect — and it is with reference to this meaning that he is called one who trains in what is to be trained. Question: if a trainee may sometimes not be training, and a non-trainee may sometimes be training, then on what basis are the trainee and non-trainee categories themselves established as distinct? Answer: within the noble stages, the trainee and non-trainee categories are established with reference to the severance of affliction alone, not with reference to the cultivation of excellent qualities — and it is for this reason that the two categories remain distinct.

What is meant by "stream-follower"? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states that there are four kinds of person: first, the stream-follower; second, the counter-stream; third, one abiding in the middle; and fourth, one who has reached the far shore. Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter at length, and since the sūtra serves as the very foundation this treatise relies upon, what it leaves unexplained ought now to be explained, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Question: what is meant by "stream-follower"? Answer: with respect to every mode of birth, every destiny, every state of existence, every category of kind, and every round of birth-and-death,

and to serve as its branch, its gateway, its basis, its path, and its track-toward — this is the meaning of "stream-follower." What is meant by "counter-stream"? Answer: with respect to the cessation of every mode of birth, the cessation of every destiny, the cessation of every state of existence, the cessation of every category of kind, and the cessation of every round of birth-and-death, and to serve as its branch, its gateway, its basis, its path, and its track-toward — this is the meaning of "counter-stream." "Stream" is of many kinds: some speak of the noble path itself as a stream; some speak of karma as a stream; some speak of craving as a stream; and some speak of birth-and-death as a stream. Here, "stream" refers specifically to birth-and-death alone. A sūtra also asks, what is meant by "following the stream"? It refers to indulging in sensual desires and committing evil karma. What is meant by "going against the stream"? It refers to not indulging in sensual desires and not committing evil karma. It should be understood that this sūtra passage establishes "following the stream" and "going against the stream" with reference to a single lifetime alone, whereas what is stated here establishes "stream-follower" and "counter-stream" with reference to many lifetimes. Furthermore, that sūtra establishes "following the stream" and "going against the stream" with reference to the momentary arising or departure of desire and evil, and it is for this reason that even a noble one not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement may still be called a "follower of the stream," while even an ordinary worldling already free of the desire realm's own defilement may still be called one who "goes against the stream"; whereas what is stated here establishes "stream-follower" and "counter-stream" with reference to a long-term orientation, whether toward birth-and-death or away from it, and it is for this reason that there may be one already free of the form realm's own defilement who is nevertheless still named a "stream-follower," and one not yet free of the desire realm's own defilement who is nevertheless already named a "counter-stream." "Every mode of birth" refers to the four modes of birth; "every destiny" refers to the five destinies; "every state of existence" refers to the three states of existence; "every category of kind" refers to the various distinct categories such as ground and station; and "every round of birth-and-death" refers to the successive rounds of transmigration from beginningless time clear through to the furthest future. "Serving as its branch" refers to the twelve links of dependent origination; "serving as its gateway" refers to karma and affliction; "serving as its basis" refers to that which one relies upon; "serving as its path" refers to the path leading toward birth-and-death; and "serving as its track-toward" refers to the track leading toward the accumulation of the view of a substantial self. Here, the first five clauses display birth-and-death itself, while the last five display birth-and-death's own nourishing growth, its own gathering-in, its own sustaining, its own unbroken continuity, and its own increase and conformity — just as a river, once drawn upon, flows on without end. Within the meaning of "going against the stream," the same five categories of birth and the rest apply, as explained above, the only difference being that, here, one attains their cessation instead. "Serving as its branch" refers to the eight branches of the noble path; "serving as its gateway" refers to the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, and the like; "serving as its basis" refers to the three gates of liberation; "serving as its path" refers to the path leading toward the cessation of birth-and-death; and "serving as its track-toward" refers to the track leading toward the cessation of the view of a substantial self. Here, the first five clauses display the cessation of birth-and-death itself, while the last five display its capacity to crush and extinguish birth-and-death, rather than nourish its growth; its capacity to relinquish and turn away from birth-and-death, rather than gather it in; its capacity to scatter and destroy birth-and-death, rather than sustain it; its capacity to sever and cut off birth-and-death, rather than let it continue unbroken; and its capacity to diminish and oppose birth-and-death, rather than increase and conform to it — just as one breaches a dam and gradually drains a pond dry. Question: at what precise point is one named "stream-follower," and at what point "counter-stream"? Some hold: up until the patient acceptance of suffering-in-the-Dharma has arisen, one is a stream-follower; once it has arisen, one is counter-stream. Others hold: up until the supreme mundane dharma has arisen, one is a stream-follower; once it has arisen, one is counter-stream. Others hold: up until the superior patient acceptance has arisen, one is a stream-follower; once it has arisen, one is counter-stream. Others hold the same, up to patient acceptance; others, up to the peak; others, up to warmth; others, up to the mindfulness-foundations; and others hold: up until the contemplation of impurity, mindfulness of breathing, and the like have arisen, one is a stream-follower; once they have arisen, one is counter-stream. According to this latter account, however: one who has not yet planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation is named a stream-follower, while one who has already planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation is named counter-stream. Why so? Countless sentient beings, though capable of generously giving to ascetics, brahmins, the poor and destitute, the weary traveler far from home, and those practicing austerities, offering every manner of food, drink, clothing, bedding, medicine, dwelling, lighting, incense, and flowers, together with every kind of precious treasure and every necessity, and even holding a great, unrestricted sacrificial assembly open to all — as Velāma did, unstinting in his generosity, and the like — yet, having failed to plant the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, after undergoing the ripened fruit of this generosity through the long night of birth-and-death, are reborn once again as hungry ghosts, undergoing hunger and thirst for hundreds of thousands of years, without so much as hearing the word "food" or "drink" spoken; or are reborn among humans, poor, lowly, and beset with every manner of suffering and affliction. Or, again, one may see countless sentient beings who guard the moral precepts and diligently study widely, upholding, reading, and reciting the Sūtra, the Vinaya, and the Abhidharma, thoroughly mastering their wording and meaning, and expounding them with careful analysis; who are also broadly conversant with the various mundane treatises — such as those on divination, on logic, on statecraft, on medicine, and on the crafts — or who are even well versed in the various treatises of the non-Buddhist schools, such as the Vaiśeṣika, the Sāṃkhya, the Vedic sciences, the Lokāyata materialists, and the Nirgrantha Jains — yet, having failed to plant the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, after undergoing the ripened fruit of this learning through the long night of birth-and-death, are reborn once again within the animal destiny, taking on the bodies of cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys, and the like, foolish, blind, and benighted, utterly incapable of speech; or are reborn among humans, blind, deaf, mute, dull-witted, and devoid of wisdom. Or, again, one may see countless sentient beings who cultivate the various concentrations, becoming free from the defilement of the desire realm, or of the form realm, or of a portion of the formless realm, abiding in the eight equipoises, giving rise to the four immeasurables, and drawing forth the five superknowledges — yet, having failed to plant the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, after undergoing the ripened fruit of this cultivation through the long night of birth-and-death, are reborn once again in the hells, undergoing every manner of extreme suffering; or are reborn within the animal destiny as a great serpent, spitting blazing venom that shatters cliffs and splits stones; or are reborn among humans as a Caṇḍāla or Pukkasa outcaste, committing filthy and evil deeds. All such beings as these, though they experience blessed fortune for a while, inevitably regress and fall again, and are therefore all named "stream-followers." If, on the other hand, sentient beings — even by offering no more than a single handful of food, or upholding the precepts for no more than a single day and night, or reciting no more than a single four-line verse, or cultivating concentration and preparatory effort for no more than a brief moment — become capable of planting the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, then, even should they later, through affliction, commit every manner of evil bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct, or even commit one of the acts of immediate retribution, or even entirely sever every one of their own wholesome roots, so that not even the smallest seed of a pure dharma remains within their own person, and fall into the Avīci hell to undergo every manner of suffering there — they are still rightly named ones who abide on the shore of nirvāṇa, since they are certain, without fail, to attain parinirvāṇa in the end. There is a simile for this: just as a fisherman baits his hook with food and casts it into the deep water, and a fish swallows it — that fish, even though it may still swim about playfully, or dart into some hole, should nevertheless be understood as already belonging to that fisherman's own hand, since it is certain, before long, to be drawn up onto the shore. It is for this reason that it is said: better to be Devadatta, falling into the Avīci hell, than to be Udraka Rāmaputra, reborn into the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Why so? Devadatta, although he committed the three acts of immediate retribution and severed his own wholesome roots, falling into the Avīci hell, will nevertheless, at a time when the human lifespan reaches forty thousand years, attain the awakening of a pratyekabuddha, of sharper faculties even than Śāriputra himself; whereas Udraka Rāmaputra, although he became free from the defilement of all eight grounds and abided in the eight equipoises, attaining the utmost calm, on the very verge of transcending the three states of existence and drawing near to the very gate of the deathless,

— is reborn into the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, undergoing tranquil bliss for eighty thousand great eons; yet, once he dies there, through the power of his own evil karma, he is reborn as a winged, flying wildcat in an austere forest hermitage, preying upon and devouring every bird and beast, whether of water, land, or air, with none escaping him — and, through this evil conduct, he will, upon his death, fall into the Avīci hell, undergoing every manner of severe and unendurable suffering there, with the Buddha himself never predicting any future time of his liberation. It is for this reason that it is said: even one still dwelling within an austere forest hermitage may still rightly be named a stream-follower, while even one still situated amid the objects of the five sensual desires may still rightly be named counter-stream. There is a simile for this: as when a man carries two vessels while walking, one of gold and one of clay, and, stumbling and falling, breaks both vessels at once — and this man, at that very moment, does not mourn the golden vessel, but instead mourns and laments the clay one. When others ask him why, he explains in full; and they further press him, saying, "you are capable of not mourning the ruined golden vessel — why, then, do you grieve so over a mere clay one?" He replies, "you are truly foolish. Why so? Because, once the golden vessel is broken, although its own shape is lost, its own substance is not lost — it can be given back to a goldsmith and restored to its original form, or even to something finer than before; whereas, once the clay vessel is broken, both its shape and its substance are lost together, and, even if given to a potter, it could never again be remade even into a mere oil-lamp, let alone its original form. It is for this reason that I do not lament the golden vessel, but instead mourn the clay one." In just the same way, Devadatta, having already planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, though he committed every manner of evil deed and was reborn in the hells, will nevertheless become a pratyekabuddha superior even to Śāriputra himself, just as that golden vessel, though broken, was restored again; whereas Udraka Rāmaputra, not having planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation, though he became free from the defilement of all eight grounds and was reborn at the very peak of existence, will in the end fall into an evil destiny, with no prospect of liberation whatsoever,

just as that clay vessel, once broken, could never be reclaimed. It is for this reason that one who has not yet planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation is named a stream-follower, while one who has already planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation is named counter-stream. Question: the wholesome roots conducive to liberation are so subtle a mark within a sentient being's own person — how, then, can one know whether they have already been planted, or not yet planted? Answer: they can be known by their own sign. What is this sign? That is, if, upon hearing a good friend expound the true Dharma, one's own bodily hairs stand on end, one weeps and sheds tears, grows weary of and turns away from birth-and-death, delights in and longs for nirvāṇa, and gives rise to deep love and reverence toward the Dharma and the Dharma-teacher, one should understand that one has certainly already planted the wholesome roots conducive to liberation; if one is incapable of this, one should understand that they have not yet been planted. There is a simile for this: as when a man, having sown seed within the furrows of a field, doubts, after a long time has passed, whether he had ever actually sown seed in that particular furrow at all, hesitating and unable to decide — and a bystander says to him,

"why hesitate at all? You need only water the furrow and cover it with manure — if a sprout then emerges, you will know that seed was indeed already sown there; if not, then it was not." And, following this advice, he does indeed come to a definite conclusion. In just the same way, a practitioner who doubts within himself whether he has ever planted the seed of liberation is told by a good friend: "go now to a place where the Dharma is being taught — if, while listening to the teaching, your bodily hairs stand on end, you weep and shed tears, and you give rise to love and reverence toward the Dharma and the Dharma-teacher, you should know that the seed of liberation has indeed already been planted within you; if not, then it has not."

It is by means of this very sign, then, that the matter can be known for certain.

What is meant by "self-abiding"? Answer: it refers to one who neither serves as a branch, and so on clear through a track-toward, with respect to every mode of birth clear through every round of birth-and-death, nor serves as a branch, and so on clear through a track-toward, with respect to the cessation of birth clear through the cessation of birth-and-death — this is the meaning of "self-abiding." This refers to one whose own task has been accomplished, whether in part or in full, and whose own resolve has come to rest, whether temporarily or finally — unlike the stream-follower or the counter-stream, whose own resolve, with respect to birth-and-death and nirvāṇa respectively, never comes to rest in either direction, and it is for this reason that such a one is named self-abiding, meaning precisely one who abides in his own proper portion. Question: are all arhats, without exception, self-abiding? And, conversely, is everyone who is self-abiding necessarily an arhat? Answer: all arhats, without exception, are self-abiding. In what state do they abide? They abide in the state where every fetter has been entirely severed and fully understood, upon becoming free from the defilement of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and attaining the fruit of arhatship. There is a case of one who is self-abiding, yet is not an arhat — this refers to the non-returner. In what state does he abide? He abides in the state where the five lower fetters have been entirely severed and fully understood, upon becoming free from the desire realm's own defilement and attaining the fruit of non-return. As the World-Honored One states:

"Having eternally severed the five afflictions, / his training complete, no karma to draw him on, / having attained mastery and the faculty of concentration, / this person is named self-abiding." "The five afflictions" refers to the five hindrances and the five lower fetters — since the non-returner has already exhausted these entirely, they are said to be "eternally severed." "Training complete" refers to

the completion of his own fruit and his own faculties, not the completion of every meditative attainment. "No karma to draw him on" refers to the fact that the karma and affliction of the desire realm can no longer draw him onward. "Having attained mastery" refers to having attained mastery of mind — that is, the ultimate meaning of having attained mastery in the realization of the superknowledge of others' minds. "The faculty of concentration" refers to possessing the concentration-faculty subsumed under dhyāna. "This person is named self-abiding" refers to one abiding in the state where the five lower fetters have been entirely severed and fully understood, upon becoming free from the desire realm's own defilement and attaining the fruit of non-return.

Are all who have attained ultimate restraint, without exception, also those who have attained the ultimate track? And, conversely, is everyone who has attained the ultimate track necessarily one who has attained ultimate restraint? Answer: all who have attained ultimate restraint, without exception, have also attained the ultimate track. Why so? Because the non-trainee's own moral discipline is named "ultimate restraint," while the four bases of supernatural power are named "the ultimate track" — and whoever has already attained the non-trainee's own moral discipline necessarily also attains the four bases of supernatural power as well. There is a case of one who has attained the ultimate track, yet has not attained ultimate restraint —

this refers to the non-returner, as the World-Honored One states: "what is meant, monks, by attaining the ultimate track? It refers to having eternally severed and fully understood the five lower fetters" — why so? Because the non-returner has already attained the four bases of supernatural power, but has not yet attained the non-trainee's own moral discipline. Some further hold: are all who have attained the ultimate track, without exception, also those who have reached the far shore? And, conversely, is everyone who has reached the far shore necessarily one who has attained the ultimate track? Answer: all who have attained the ultimate track, without exception, have also reached the far shore. Why so? Because the exhaustion of every fetter is itself named "the ultimate track," and, as a sūtra states, "track" here means precisely nirvāṇa itself —

and, having eternally severed the five fetters, one no longer transmigrates through birth-and-death, and it is this that is named "reaching the far shore." All arhats, having already realized this in their own person, are named ones who have attained the ultimate track, since, having already severed the five upper fetters as well, they no longer transmigrate through birth-and-death within any of the three realms, and it is this that is named "reaching the far shore." There is a case of one who has reached the far shore, yet has not attained the ultimate track —

this refers to the non-returner, as the World-Honored One states: "what is meant, monks, by being named one who has reached the far shore? It refers to having eternally severed and fully understood the five lower fetters" — and, having severed these, one no longer transmigrates through the desire realm's own birth-and-death, and it is this that is named "reaching the far shore." Furthermore, an arhat reaches the far shore twice over with respect to all three realms — namely, at the moment of severing what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation across all three realms — whereas the non-returner reaches the far shore twice over only with respect to the desire realm — namely, at the moment of severing what is abandoned by seeing and by cultivation within the desire realm alone — yet, since he has not yet attained nirvāṇa, he is not named one who has attained the ultimate track. Some further hold: are all arhats, without exception, ones who have fathomed the very bottom of the source? And, conversely, is everyone who has fathomed the very bottom of the source necessarily an arhat? Answer: all arhats, without exception, have fathomed the very bottom of the source. There is a case of one who has fathomed the very bottom of the source, yet is not an arhat — this refers to the non-returner, as the World-Honored One states: "what is meant, monks, by fathoming the very bottom of the source? It refers to having eternally severed and fully understood the five lower fetters" — the two explanations here should be understood exactly as explained above for reaching the far shore.

At what point is one named a bodhisattva? — and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for a sūtra states, "there is a certain kind of being who is not foolish, but wise — namely, a bodhisattva." Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter further, leaving unanswered at what point one is named a bodhisattva, and by what one comes to be so named. Since that sūtra serves as the very foundation this treatise relies upon, what it leaves unexplained ought now to be explained, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Furthermore, it is composed in order to put an end to the overweening pride of those who, not actually being bodhisattvas at all, presume to consider themselves such. Why so? There are sentient beings who, having offered no more than a single meal, or a single garment, or a single dwelling-place, or even no more than a single tooth-cleaning twig, or having upheld no more than a single precept, or recited no more than a single verse, or practiced no more than a single session of concentrated contemplation of impurity and the like,

then boldly proclaim, in a lion's roar, "because of this, I shall certainly become a Buddha." It is precisely in order to put an end to such overweening pride that this treatise displays that, even one who has passed through the full three incalculable eons, thoroughly cultivating every manner of difficult and austere practice, ought not yet to say, "I am a bodhisattva," so long as he has not yet cultivated the karma that produces the excellent bodily marks — how much less, then, should this be said by those of such extremely inferior standing, filled with such overweening pride? It is for this reason that the Bodhisattva himself, even upon completing the very first incalculable eon, although he has thoroughly cultivated every manner of difficult and austere practice, is not yet capable of knowing with certainty that he will become a Buddha; and, upon completing the second incalculable eon, although he is now capable of knowing with certainty that he will become a Buddha, he still does not yet dare to declare, without fear, "I shall become a Buddha"; and it is only upon completing the third incalculable eon, and cultivating the karma that produces the excellent bodily marks,

that he both knows with certainty that he will become a Buddha, and also declares, without fear, in a lion's roar, "I shall become a Buddha." At what point, then, is one named a bodhisattva?

Answer: it is precisely at the point of being capable of performing and augmenting the karma that ripens into the excellent bodily marks. Question: if a sentient being gives rise to the aspiration for unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, and that aspiration never regresses, then, from that very point onward, ought he not already to be called a bodhisattva? Why, then, is he named a bodhisattva only once he has performed and augmented the karma that ripens into the excellent bodily marks? Answer: only one whose own awakening is determined, and whose own orientation toward it is likewise determined, is named a true bodhisattva. From the very first arising of the aspiration clear through to before the cultivation of the karma of the excellent marks, although his own awakening is indeed determined, his own orientation toward it is not yet determined, and he cannot yet be named a true bodhisattva — only once he reaches the stage of cultivating the karma of the excellent marks does his own awakening become determined, and his own orientation toward it become determined as well, and it is for this reason that only at this point is he named a bodhisattva. Furthermore, at the moment of cultivating the karma of the excellent marks, both humans and gods alike come to recognize and know that he is indeed a bodhisattva, and it is for this reason that he is named a true bodhisattva; before cultivating the karma of the excellent marks, only the gods know this of him, and it is for this reason that he cannot yet be named a true bodhisattva. Furthermore, at the moment of cultivating the karma of the excellent marks, he relinquishes five inferior things and gains five superior things: first, he relinquishes the evil destinies and is thereafter constantly reborn in the wholesome destinies; second, he relinquishes lowly families and is thereafter constantly reborn into noble families; third, he relinquishes any body other than a male one and thereafter always attains a male body; fourth, he relinquishes incomplete faculties and thereafter always possesses complete faculties; and fifth, he relinquishes any forgetfulness of mindfulness and thereafter always attains a naturally-arising mindfulness of his own — and it is through this that he comes to be named a true bodhisattva. Before cultivating the karma of the excellent marks, the opposite of all this holds true, and it is for this reason that he cannot yet be named a true bodhisattva. Question: what benefit does the Bodhisattva gain from attaining this naturally-arising mindfulness? Answer: through attaining this naturally-arising mindfulness, the Bodhisattva becomes free of every fault common to ordinary sentient beings, accumulates extensive learning, deepens his faith in cause and effect, skillfully gathers his own following, and ensures that whatever instruction and admonition he gives is never in vain, so that his own provisions for awakening grow ever more complete — this is the benefit. By attaining what is he named a bodhisattva? Answer: by attaining the karma that ripens into the excellent marks. Question: why is this treatise composed once again? Answer: in order to settle a lingering doubt definitively — that is, the passage has already stated above that one is named a bodhisattva precisely at the point of being capable of performing and augmenting the karma that ripens into the excellent marks; and, lest doubt arise, thinking that, although one is indeed named a bodhisattva at this very stage, the name "bodhisattva" might instead derive from the realization of some other excellent dharma, this treatise now wishes to make plain that it is precisely by means of the karma that ripens into the excellent marks that one attains the name "bodhisattva," and by no other dharma, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. Question: it is on account of unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening that one is named bodhi-sattva, "awakening-being" — why, then, does this name still apply before that awakening is actually realized, yet no longer apply, being replaced instead by the name "Buddha," once it has been realized? Answer: because, before this being has attained unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, he constantly, with an overwhelming resolve, conforms to awakening, proceeds toward awakening, draws near to awakening, delights in awakening, reveres awakening, and thirsts after awakening, seeking to realize it, wishing to realize it, without laxity and without rest, his mind never for a moment abandoning awakening — and it is for this reason that he is named bodhi-sattva, "awakening-being." But, once he has already attained unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, his own resolve and effort in seeking awakening both come to rest entirely, and it is only his having actually accomplished the very meaning of "awakening" itself that now stands supreme — since he has eternally severed every defiled and undefiled form of delusion, fully awakened to every object of knowledge, both ultimate and conventional, and, moreover, is now capable of awakening countless sentient beings, according to their own faculties, desires, and dispositions, bringing benefit to them all — and it is on account of this very supremacy in the meaning of "awakening" that he is named Buddha, "the Awakened One," and no longer bodhisattva. Furthermore, sattva itself carries the meaning of "a valiant one" — before attaining unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, he is constantly diligent and valiant with respect to awakening, seeking to realize it swiftly, and it is for this reason that he is named bodhi-sattva; but, once he has already attained unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, his own valiant striving toward awakening comes to rest, and it is only his supremacy in the very meaning of "awakening" that now stands, and it is for this reason that he is named Buddha, since he has become capable of accomplishing the most supreme awakening of all.