The Four Noble Lineages of Contentment

As it is said, "among my disciples, Mahākāśyapa has few desires, is content, and is complete in the ascetic practices, while Vakkula has few illnesses, is frugal, and is complete in pure moral discipline" — what difference is there between these two? Answer: whatever food the Venerable Mahākāśyapa receives, whether coarse or excellent, he eats in the very order received, without any discrimination, just as a fine horse eats whatever it is given. The Venerable Vakkula, of whatever food he receives, whether coarse or excellent, sets aside the excellent and eats only the coarse. Question: why does the Venerable Mahākāśyapa eat coarse and excellent food alike, while the Venerable Vakkula sets aside the excellent to eat only the coarse? Answer: the Venerable Mahākāśyapa possesses a delight in the excellent while abiding by the ascetic Dharma; possessing this delight in the excellent, he does not discriminate against excellent food,

and abiding by the ascetic Dharma, he does not discriminate against coarse food either, but simply eats whatever he receives in the order received. The Venerable Vakkula possesses a delight in the coarse while abiding by the ascetic Dharma; possessing this delight in the coarse, he sets aside the excellent, and, abiding by the ascetic Dharma, eats the coarse. Furthermore, the Venerable Mahākāśyapa, being widely known and of great merit, does not first accept robes, food and drink, bedding and seats, medicine, or other requisites even when they are easy to obtain, and yet is still able to carry out the ascetic virtues — an extremely difficult matter on two counts: that gain is easy to obtain, and yet is not accepted, while the ascetic virtues are still able to be carried out. The Venerable Vakkula, not being widely known nor of great merit, does first accept robes, food and drink, bedding and seats, medicine, or other requisites even when they are difficult to obtain, and yet is also able to carry out the ascetic virtues; a monk of little renown who accepts the ascetic virtues and simply follows along with circumstance finds this no difficulty — this is not difficult on two counts: that gain is difficult to obtain, and is accepted first, while the ascetic virtues are still carried out accordingly. Some recite this passage in the opposite sense: that the Venerable Mahākāśyapa, being widely known and of great merit, does first accept robes, food and drink, bedding and seats, medicine, or other requisites even when they are easy to obtain, and the ascetic virtues are still carried out accordingly; while the Venerable Vakkula, not being widely known nor of great merit, does not first accept robes, food and drink, bedding and seats, medicine, or other requisites even when they are difficult to obtain, and yet these ascetic virtues are still carried out accordingly — a monk of little renown who does not accept them and simply follows along with circumstance finds this no difficulty — this is not difficult on two counts: that gain is difficult to obtain, and is not accepted first, while the ascetic virtues are still carried out therein. This displays that Kāśyapa excels in three respects: possessing delight in the excellent, easily obtaining gain, and yet accepting and carrying out the ascetic virtues. Question: why does the Venerable Vakkula set aside excellent food to eat only the coarse? Answer: it is due to the force of his own disposition — sentient beings' own dispositions differ, and each eats according to his own disposition; one cannot demand a further reason for this.

Some say: excellent, exquisite food generally requires much effort to prepare, and, not wishing to cause others such trouble and expense, he does not eat it. Some say: excellent, exquisite food nourishes craving and often gives rise to contention, and hence he does not eat it. Some say: fine food belongs properly to the wealthy, and, wishing to benefit the poor by leaving such food for them, he does not eat it. Some say: delicious food inevitably requires much slaughter, ending hundreds of thousands of lives, their heads left scattered upon the ground, being made up of the flesh and blood of so many bodies; out of compassion for those beings, he does not eat it. Some say: delicious food gives rise to all manner of faults, and hence he does not eat it. Question: as stated, does Vakkula set aside the excellent food from the very start, not accepting it at all, or does he accept it and then discard it afterward? And, granting either, what difficulty follows? If he does not accept it from the very start, how can this be named "accepting and carrying out" the ascetic practice of alms-begging in due order? And if he accepts it and then discards it, would this not damage the donor's own offered gift? Answer: it should be said that he does not accept it from the very start. Question: if so, how can this be named "accepting and carrying out" the ascetic practice of alms-begging in due order? Answer: that venerable one, having attained the divine eye and wish-knowledge, when about to go begging, first observes in which direction, which village, town, street, or lane only coarse food is to be found, and, having known this, goes there and begs in due order. As the sūtra states, there are four noble lineages: first, the noble lineage of contentment with whatever food one receives; second, the noble lineage of contentment with whatever robes one receives; third, the noble lineage of contentment with whatever bedding one receives; and fourth, the noble lineage of delighting in cutting off and delighting in cultivating, with respect to existence and non-existence. Question: for what reason did the World-Honored One teach this sūtra? Answer: in order to establish for his disciples both a proper livelihood and a proper undertaking — the first three establishing a proper livelihood, and the fourth establishing a proper undertaking. As for the first three establishing a proper livelihood: that is, relinquishing four kinds of occupation and taking up a single occupation instead. The four occupations are: first, farming as one's occupation; second, trading as one's occupation; third, hired labor as one's occupation; and fourth, ruling as one's own master as one's occupation. Relinquishing all of these and taking up instead the single occupation of alms-begging alone. Some say: it is in order to display an inexhaustible livelihood and undertaking. Furthermore, it is in order to display a blameless livelihood and undertaking. Furthermore, it is in order to display a harmless livelihood and undertaking. Furthermore, it is in order to display a livelihood and undertaking not shared with outsiders. Here, "livelihood" refers to what the first three should accomplish, and "undertaking" refers to what the fourth should accomplish. Some say: it is in order to display both the path and the provisions for the path.

Here, the first three display the provisions for the path, while the last displays the path itself — and just as with the path and its provisions, so too should it be understood with the ascetic and the ascetic's provisions, the brahmin and the brahmin's provisions, and pure conduct and the provisions for pure conduct. It is on account of such meanings as these that the Buddha taught this sūtra on the noble lineages. Question: what is the intrinsic nature of the noble lineages? Answer: their intrinsic nature is, in every case, the wholesome root of non-greed. Some say: the first three are the wholesome root of non-greed, while the last is diligence. According to this latter view, the first account is to be preferred, since all four alike counteract greed. Question: if so, on what distinguishing basis are four kinds spoken of? Answer: in order to counteract four kinds of craving — that is, contentment with robes counteracts craving for robes; contentment with food counteracts craving for food and drink; contentment with bedding counteracts craving for bedding; and delighting in cutting off and cultivating counteracts craving for existence and non-existence — and it is on this account that all four are said to be of the nature of non-greed. When taken together with their conjoined and concomitant factors, they are, in the desire and form realms, of the nature of the five aggregates, and, in the formless realm, of the nature of the four aggregates. This is the intrinsic nature of the noble lineages — that is, their own substance, their own nature, their own characteristic, and their own inherent nature. Their intrinsic nature has now been explained; what is to be explained next follows. Question: why are they named "noble lineages"? Answer: some say: because they are both noble and a lineage, they are named "noble lineage" — that is, being wholesome, they are named "noble"; being uncontaminated, they are named "noble"; and, since they are themselves able to give rise to an unbroken continuum of virtuous dharmas, they are named "lineage." Some say: because they are the lineage belonging to the noble ones, they are named "noble lineage" — "noble" referring to every undistorted wholesome dharma, and these four being named "lineage" because they are able to give rise to it in unbroken continuity. Some say: because they operate within the mental continuum of the noble ones, causing it to remain unbroken, they are named "noble lineage." Some say: because they can be found within the mental continuum of the noble ones, causing it to remain unbroken, they are named "noble lineage." Some say: "noble" refers to a fruit that is lovable, delightful, pleasant, and agreeable, and, since these are able to give rise to it in unbroken continuity, they are named "noble lineage" — this being spoken with reference to the outflow-fruit. Some say: "noble" names a lovable, delightful, pleasant, and agreeable ripened fruit, and, since these are able to draw it forth in unbroken continuity, they are named "noble lineage" — this being spoken with reference to the ripened fruit. Some say: "the noble ones" refers precisely to Buddhas, pratyekabuddhas, and śrāvakas, and, since they are born from these in unbroken continuity, they are named "noble lineage." Some say: the true Dharma itself is named "noble,"

and, since these are able to sustain and maintain it so that it continues for a long time, they are named "noble lineage" — it is on account of this power of the noble lineages that the true Dharma remains in the world for a thousand years without perishing, just as rafters and beams sustain a house and keep it from collapsing. It is on account of such conditions as these that they are named "noble lineage." With respect to realm: all four fall within the three realms as well as beyond any realm. Question: the form realm has no food or drink, and the formless realm has none of the first three — how, then, can all three realms alike possess all four?

Answer: although those realms lack food and the rest, they still possess the corresponding virtue of contentment. Some say: because the lower realm possesses all four kinds, those who ascend in succession from it into the higher realms retain all four kinds as well. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: although the higher realms lack food and the rest, they still possess the corresponding counteraction to craving for them; and this counteraction is of four kinds — the counteraction of severance, the counteraction of aversion and destruction, the counteraction of suppression, and the counteraction of distancing. The form realm possesses all four counteractions with respect to food and the rest; the desire realm possesses three, excepting the counteraction of severance; and the formless realm possesses two, namely suppression and distancing. The Venerable Buddhadeva states: just as, although there is no uncontaminated robe or food, there is still an uncontaminated noble lineage, so too, although the form and formless realms lack food and the rest, they still possess the noble lineage proper to those realms. The Venerable One states: since even one who has no regard for the mere requisites sustaining his own body is still named one who abides in the noble lineage, how much more should one who has no regard for the body itself be said to possess the noble lineage? With respect to ground: in their contaminated form, they exist across eleven grounds; in their uncontaminated form, across nine grounds. With respect to support: all four alike depend upon any of the three realms. With respect to mode of activity: all four alike operate through the sixteen modes of activity as well as other modes of activity. With respect to objective support: all four alike take every dharma as their object. With respect to the mindfulness-foundations: all four pertain to all four mindfulness-foundations. With respect to what kind of cognition: all four comprise either eight or ten kinds of cognition. With respect to whether conjoined with concentration: all four are conjoined with the three concentrations as well as with non-concentration. With respect to their conjoined faculty: taken generally, all four are conjoined with the three faculties of pleasure, joy, and equanimity. With respect to time: all four fall within the three times, and take as their object both the three times and what is beyond time. With respect to whether wholesome and the rest: all four are wholesome, taking all three as their object. With respect to whether bound to the desire realm and the rest: all four are bound to all three realms as well as unbound, and likewise take these as their object. Question: if so, how is the Prajñaptiśāstra's own statement to be reconciled, where it says that the four noble lineages are, in every case, untainted and unmixed by affliction? Answer: that statement excludes only conjunction with affliction, not the contaminated state itself, and hence there is no difficulty. With respect to whether a trainee's and the rest: all four pertain to all three categories, and take all three as their object. With respect to whether abandoned by seeing and the rest: all four are abandoned by cultivation, and take as their object both what is abandoned by cultivation and what is not abandoned. With respect to whether they take names or meanings as their object: all four take both names and meanings as their object. With respect to whether they take one's own mental continuum, another's, or neither as their object: all four take all three as their object. With respect to whether attained through effortful practice, through the abandonment of afflictions, or innately: they are attained through effortful practice and through the abandonment of afflictions, but not innately. Some say:

they are also innate. According to this latter view, the first account is to be preferred, since, were an innate wholesome quality also to count as a noble lineage, then even an ant's egg or a gnat or moth would also possess the noble lineages — and hence the noble lineages do not include what is innately wholesome. Question: are the noble lineages accomplished through hearing, through reflection, or through cultivation?

Answer: they are subsumed under all three alike. Question: do they belong to the mental-consciousness ground, or to the five sense-consciousnesses? Answer: only to the mental-consciousness ground, not to the five sense-consciousnesses. Some say: they belong to the five sense-consciousnesses as well.

Comment: this ought not to be said. Why is this? Because the wholesome quality found among the five sense-consciousnesses is only ever innate. Question: if they are wholesome qualities attained through effortful practice, then would the dhyānas, the immeasurables, the formless attainments, the liberations, the bases of vanquishing, and the totality-bases attained by outsiders also count as noble lineages? Answer: those are not noble lineages. Why is this? Because a wholesome root counts as a noble lineage only if it delights in liberation and turns away in aversion from saṃsāra; whatever outsiders delight in is entirely bound up with saṃsāra, and hence their wholesome roots are not named noble lineages. Furthermore, a noble lineage is named for giving rise to contentment with respect to existence and the requisites of existence; the wholesome roots of outsiders run contrary to this, and hence are not noble lineages, since even outsiders such as the followers of the Pañcaśikha school still seek rebirth in heaven to enjoy sensual pleasures. Furthermore, the noble lineages are, in every case, wholesome roots belonging to the category of one who has gone forth, whereas the wholesome roots of outsiders are, in every case, subsumed under the category of the householder, and hence are not noble lineages.

Question: both wanting little and contentment alike counteract greed, and are of the nature of non-greed — why, then, is contentment established as a noble lineage, and not wanting little? Answer: the term "wanting little" carries both a fault and an excess, whereas "contentment" does not. The fault is that it merely says "wanting little" without saying "wanting nothing at all"; the excess is that it applies the term "wanting little" even to one who in fact wants nothing at all. Since contentment involves no such difficulty, it alone is established as a noble lineage. Some say:

wanting little operates with respect to what is not yet obtained, in the future; contentment operates with respect to what has already been obtained, in the present. It is difficult to refrain from taking even a single kārṣāpaṇa presently in hand, but not difficult with respect to some future gain, even the position of a wheel-turning king itself — and it is because contentment is difficult in just this way that it is established as a noble lineage. Some say: it is in order to differ from outsiders that wanting little is not spoken of as a noble lineage. Were wanting little declared a noble lineage, the outsiders would then say: "we, in truth, are the ones who abide in the noble lineage — for you monks still wear rag-robes, while we go about entirely naked, without robes at all;

you monks still sustain yourselves by begging for alms, while many of us starve ourselves and eat nothing at all; you monks still sit beneath trees, while we constantly stand with a hand raised and one leg lifted — hence we, in truth, are the ones named as abiding in the noble lineage." It is in order to forestall such a claim that only contentment, and not wanting little, is spoken of as a noble lineage,

since outsiders are not content with respect to existence and the requisites of existence.

Question: what difference is there between wanting little and contentment? Some say: wanting little exists only in the mental-consciousness ground, whereas contentment extends to all six consciousness-bodies. Some say:

wanting little exists only in the desire realm, whereas contentment extends to the desire and form realms. Some say: wanting little exists only in the desire and form realms, whereas contentment extends to all three realms.

Some say: wanting little falls within all three realms, whereas contentment is bound to all three realms as well as unbound. According to this latter view, both wanting little and contentment alike extend to being bound to all three realms as well as unbound. Question: if so, what difference remains between them? Answer: wanting little operates with respect to what is not yet obtained, in the future, whereas contentment operates with respect to what has already been obtained, in the present — this is the difference between them.

Question: why is the contentment arising from medicine, as a condition for illness, not spoken of as a noble lineage? Answer: it too ought properly to be spoken of as a noble lineage, and the fact that it is not should be understood as having a further reason. Some say: it is already subsumed under what was spoken of before — that is, medicine, as a condition for illness, is of two kinds, edible and inedible; the edible kind is subsumed under food, and the inedible kind is subsumed under robes and bedding. Some say: it is in order to benefit sick monks that contentment with medicine is not spoken of as a noble lineage — that is, there may be a monk who, though his body is ill, does not seek out medicine on account of having few concerns,

and, were the Buddha to establish this as a noble lineage, such a monk would then simply hold onto his illness and fail to diligently cultivate the preparatory practice of the noble path; it is in order to benefit him, causing him to cultivate the path diligently, that this is not spoken of as a noble lineage. Some say: contentment is established as a noble lineage only where its enjoyment is capable of giving rise to heedlessness; medicine, as a condition for illness, when enjoyed, is only able to remove illness and does not increase heedlessness, and hence it is not spoken of as such. Some say: contentment is established as a noble lineage only where it is enjoyed in every place, by every person, and at every time; medicine, as a condition for illness, does not admit of this kind of universal enjoyment, and hence contentment with it is not established as a noble lineage. It is for this reason that the Venerable Vakkula said: "I have, within the Buddha's Dharma, gone forth for more than eighty years, and I do not recall my body ever having had so much as a headache, nor do I recall ever having made use of medicine as a condition for illness, down to even a single harītakī fruit." If this is so even for one born in the desire realm, how much more so for one born in the form or formless realm! Question: why is the noble lineage established only with respect to the unmanifest form of the prātimokṣa restraint, and not its manifest form? Answer: as explained before, being unbroken in continuity is what is named a noble lineage; the manifest form is not unbroken in continuity, and hence it is not spoken of. Some say: the unmanifest form is able to occur together with the noble path, and hence is established as a noble lineage; the manifest form does not occur together with the noble path, and hence is not spoken of. Both those who have gone forth and those who remain householders possess the four noble lineages; yet those who have gone forth are said to possess the noble lineages on two counts — through disposition, and through actual enjoyment — whereas householders are said to possess them on only one count, through disposition alone, not through actual enjoyment,

just as Śakra, lord of the devas, seated upon his wondrous flower-throne, surrounded by twelve nayuta attendant maidens and entertained by sixty thousand musical instruments, constantly possesses the disposition of the four noble lineages, yet without their actual enjoyment; and kings such as Bimbisāra and elders such as Sudatta are likewise so.

Question: does possessing any single one of the noble lineages already qualify one to be named one who abides in the noble lineage? Answer: it does not. Only one who possesses all four together is named one who abides in the noble lineage; yet, at the very moment one attains a single noble lineage, one necessarily attains all four together, just as, with the unimpeded understandings, attaining one necessarily means attaining all four.

Every past Buddha alike praised the rag-robe, yet did not permit its wearing; the present Buddha Śākyamuni likewise praises the rag-robe, yet does in fact permit its wearing. Question: why is this so? Answer: people in the past had such slight greed of mind that, even upon obtaining robes worth a hundred thousand pieces of gold, their attachment to them was not as strong as present-day people's attachment even to a mere ordinary robe. Some say: people in that former age were abundant in wealth and treasure, so that monks seeking robes worth a hundred thousand pieces of gold found this easier than present-day monks find it to seek out a mere rag-robe. The Venerable Vasumitra states: people in the past had such vast and generous dispositions that, upon seeing monks possessed of fine, excellent requisites, they gave rise to joy and reverent faith; whereas present-day people have such narrow and inferior dispositions that it is only upon seeing monks possessed of coarse, worn-out requisites that they give rise to joy and reverent faith. The Venerable Buddhadeva states:

people in ancient times had bodies so delicate and soft that, were they to make use of coarse, worn-out things, they could not sustain themselves; whereas present-day people have bodies so coarse and hardy that, even making use of coarse, worn-out things, they are able to sustain themselves. The Venerable One states: it should be understood that, when past Buddhas praised the rag-robe, this was itself already a permission to make use of it — for, were it not so, why would they have praised it at all? Buddhas never speak without good reason.

As the World-Honored One states, the rag-robe is little, easily obtained, and blameless — what is meant by "little," by "easily obtained," and by "blameless"? The Venerable Vasumitra states: it requires little effort to prepare, and is not made use of by many people, and it is hence named "little"; it can be obtained in whatever place or time one happens to be, and it is hence named "easily obtained"; the Buddha himself has sanctioned and permitted it, and the wise make use of it, and it is hence named "blameless." The Venerable One states: it is of little monetary value, and is hence named "little";

it is not sought from others, and is hence named "easily obtained"; and it involves no attachment, and is hence named "blameless." On account of two causal conditions the Buddha spoke of contentment with robes as a noble lineage: first, in order to reproach those discontent with robes, such as Nanda and the like; and second, in order to praise those content with robes, such as Mahākāśyapa and the like. On account of two causal conditions the Buddha spoke of contentment with food as a noble lineage: first, in order to reproach those discontent with food, such as Bharadvāja and the like; and second, in order to praise those content with food, such as Vakkula and the like. On account of two causal conditions the Buddha spoke of contentment with bedding as a noble lineage: first, in order to reproach those discontent with bedding, such as the monk called "Foolish King" and the like — as the sūtra relates, the monk Foolish King said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, please observe how coarse and worn my own bedding and seat are" — and second, in order to praise those content with bedding, such as Hastaka and the like. On account of two causal conditions the Buddha spoke of delighting in cutting off and cultivating as a noble lineage: first, in order to reproach idleness, such as Chanda's; and second, in order to praise diligence, such as Śroṇa's. On account of four causal conditions one may know that a given person truly abides in the noble lineages: first, he takes no delight in hearing of others' gains; second, he takes no delight in associating with those who crave delicious food; third, the requisites he keeps are few, yet pure, and he gives rise to no attachment toward them; and fourth, whether he obtains gain or not, he gives rise to neither craving nor aversion.

As the World-Honored One states, these four noble lineages are the supreme knowledge, the knowledge of one's own lineage, the delightful knowledge, and the untainted — beyond reproach by any being in the whole world, whether ascetic, brahmin, god, māra, or Brahmā, or any other being whatsoever, none of whom can rightly find any fault in them. What is meant by "supreme knowledge"? Some say: these four noble lineages are able to draw forth what is supreme, attain a supreme fruit, proceed toward what is supreme, and accord with what is supreme, and it is for this reason that they are named "supreme"; and, since they are established and known by the Buddha himself, they are named "knowledge." Some say: the Buddha states that each of his five hundred śrāvakas possesses his own supreme quality, and, since these four fall within the scope of that supreme quality, they are named "supreme";

and, since the Buddha knows these four to be true contentment, they are named "knowledge." Some say: the Buddha and those disciples named "supreme" are the very ones whose praise and account of these four is what is named "supreme knowledge." Some say: the Buddha knows these four to be a supreme treasury able to satisfy the aspirations of whoever abides in them, and it is for this reason that they are named "supreme knowledge",

since most sentient beings die with their aspirations left unsatisfied, whereas only those who abide in the noble lineages die with their aspirations fully satisfied. Some say: the Buddha knows these four to be an inexhaustible treasury, enabling the wise to make use of them without ever exhausting them, and it is for this reason that they are named "supreme knowledge" — that is, one who abides in them need not seek out or accumulate much, nor guard any door or gate with lock and key, but simply enjoys them at will without end, whereas even a wheel-turning king ruling over the four continents will swiftly exhaust the wealth and treasure he makes use of, while these four are enjoyed without ever being exhausted. What is meant by "the knowledge of one's own lineage"? Answer: since all the Buddhas throughout as many world-systems as there are grains of sand in the River Gaṅgā, together with their disciples, are born from these four, they are named "lineage," and, since they are comprehended by the wise, they are named "knowledge." Some say: "lineage" here carries the sense of sustaining, that is, since these are able to sustain and maintain the noble teaching so that it does not perish for a long time, they are named "lineage",

and, since they are comprehended by the Buddha, they are named "knowledge." What is meant by "the delightful knowledge"? Answer: these four are delighted in by the wise and known by the wise, and it is for this reason that they are named "the delightful knowledge." Some say: the Buddha knows these four to be all able to assist delight in cutting off and delight in cultivating, and it is for this reason that they are named "the delightful knowledge." Some say:

the Buddha knows these four to be such that, throughout the three watches of both day and night, the wise delight in and abide in them accordingly, without ever growing weary, and it is for this reason that they are named "the delightful knowledge." Some say: the Buddha knows these four to be that in which practitioners delight to abide for a long time — that is, from the latter part of one day, sitting cross-legged and abiding therein, clear through to the first part of the following day, rising from it only when drawn away by some other necessity. What is meant by "untainted"? Answer: these four noble lineages are never encroached upon or mixed with by affliction or evil karma. What is meant by "beyond reproach"? Answer: whoever abides in these four is constantly praised, and never once reproached, by those who abide in the true Dharma — and it is precisely on this account that no being in the whole world, whether ascetic, brahmin, god, māra, or Brahmā, can rightly find any fault in them. The Venerable Vasumitra states as follows: the Buddha knows these four to be able to enter into the noble womb, and it is for this reason that they are named "supreme knowledge"; every noble one is born from these, and it is for this reason that they are named "the knowledge of one's own lineage"; they are what practitioners delight in day and night, and it is for this reason that they are named "the delightful knowledge"; they are far removed from the four kinds of worldly occupation — farming, trading, hired labor, and ruling as one's own master — and it is for this reason that they are named "untainted"; and, since every virtue is thereby made complete, doing harm neither to oneself nor to others, they are named "beyond reproach," such that no being in the whole world, whether ascetic, brahmin, god, māra, or Brahmā, can rightly find any fault in them.

As the Blessed One states in a sūtra, in a verse:

"Whoever has subdued craving and aversion, ever dwelling in a solitary seat, constantly abiding in heedfulness, uproots the latent tendency of craving for existence."

Question: what meaning does this verse set forth? Answer: "craving" here refers to craving desire; "aversion" refers to hatred and resentment. Should the Buddha's noble disciple subdue these two,

dwelling in a solitary seat and abiding in heedfulness, he is thereby able to eternally uproot the latent tendency of craving for existence. Furthermore, within the true Dharma and Vinaya,

whenever one's mind turns toward whatever one has obtained with a savoring attachment, this is named "craving"; and whenever one's mind turns toward whatever one has not obtained with sorrowful longing, this is named "aversion." The Buddha's noble disciple does not savor what he has already obtained, nor sorrow over what he has not yet obtained, and is thus able to subdue both alike; and, having subdued both, dwelling in a solitary seat and abiding in heedfulness, he is thereby able to eternally uproot the latent tendency of craving for existence. Furthermore, craving after fine, excellent robes and food is named "craving," while feeling aversion toward coarse, worn-out robes and food is named "aversion"; the Buddha's noble disciple is able to subdue both alike. This first clause displays the noble lineage of contentment with robes and food; the second clause displays the noble lineage of contentment with bedding; and the last two clauses display the noble lineage of delighting in cutting off and delighting in cultivating.

Question: what difference is there between delighting in cutting off and delighting in cultivating? Answer: delighting in cutting off refers to affliction; delighting in cultivating refers to the noble path. Furthermore, the uninterrupted path is named delighting in cutting off, and the path of liberation is named delighting in cultivating. Furthermore, the path of seeing is named delighting in cutting off, and the path of cultivation is named delighting in cultivating; and, just as with the path of seeing and the path of cultivation,

so too should it be understood with the stage of seeing and the stage of cultivation, and with the faculty of "I shall come to know the unknown" and the faculty of "having come to know." Furthermore, delighting in cutting off displays the patient acceptances, while delighting in cultivating displays the cognitions — this, then, is the difference between delighting in cutting off and delighting in cultivating.

As it is said, "Mahānāman, a trainee for the most part dwells in the gradual severance of the five hindrances," 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 the Buddha told Mahānāman that a trainee for the most part dwells in the gradual severance of the five hindrances. Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter — what is a trainee, and what does it mean for a trainee to dwell for the most part in the gradual severance of the five hindrances? 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. As it is said, "a trainee for the most part dwells in the gradual severance of the five hindrances" — here, what is meant by "trainee"?

Answer: the stream-enterer or the once-returner. What does it mean for a trainee to dwell for the most part in the gradual severance of the five hindrances? Answer: gradually severing, gradually departing from, gradually suppressing, and gradually turning away from them. Question: why is it not said here that one following through conviction or one following through the Dharma is likewise named a trainee dwelling for the most part in the gradual severance of the five hindrances? Answer: where something ought to be stated yet is not stated, it should be understood that there is a further reason. Some say: among those following through conviction or through the Dharma, some dwell with the five hindrances already severed, and some dwell in their gradual severance, and, since this is not fixed, it is not spoken of; whereas the stream-enterer and the once-returner are not so — they definitively and exclusively dwell in the gradual severance of the five hindrances, and it is for this reason that they alone are spoken of. Some say: it is spoken of here only where the afflictions of the five hindrances are still capable of manifesting within a given person's own body and are being gradually severed; whereas, for one following through conviction or through the Dharma, even a contaminated wholesome mind, or an unobscured-neutral mind, has scarcely any room to manifest, let alone affliction itself — and hence this is not spoken of. Question: within the body of the stream-enterer or the once-returner, the hindrance of doubt has already been severed, and although the hindrance of remorse has not yet been severed, it no longer manifests — why, then, is it said that they dwell for the most part in the gradual severance of the five hindrances,

— and, further, why is it said they are still capable of manifesting? Answer: the earlier passage ought properly to have said that a trainee dwells for the most part in the gradual severance of the hindrances, without specifying "five"; and the reason "five" is specified is that there are five distinct matters involved — namely, craving desire, ill will, drowsiness-and-torpor, and restlessness-and-remorse. Some say: what was severed before and what is severed now are together spoken of collectively as "severing five," just as one speaks of "severing the five lower fetters" in attaining the fruit of non-return. "Dwells for the most part" means dwelling in this state again and again. Question: what difference is there among "severing," "departing from," "suppressing," and "turning away from"? Some say: there is no difference, since all four alike display severance. Some say: there is indeed a difference — that is, severing the bond itself is named "severing"; attaining freedom from it is named "departing from"; preventing it from operating is named "suppressing"; and feeling aversion and opposition toward it is named "turning away from." Furthermore, with reference to the uninterrupted path, it is called "severing"; with reference to the path of liberation, it is called "departing from" — these two are spoken of with reference to eternal severance; with reference to proximate effortful practice, it is called "suppressing"; with reference to distant effortful practice, it is called "turning away from" — these two are spoken of with reference to temporary severance. Furthermore, with reference to the uninterrupted path, it is called "severing"; with reference to the path of liberation, it is called "departing from" — these two are spoken of with reference to the proper act of severance; with reference to the path of effortful practice, it is called "suppressing"; with reference to the path of special advancement, it is called "turning away from" — these two are spoken of with reference to auxiliary severance. Furthermore, "severing" is spoken of with reference to the counteraction of severance; "departing from" is spoken of with reference to the counteraction of sustaining; "suppressing" is spoken of with reference to the counteraction of distancing; and "turning away from" is spoken of with reference to the counteraction of aversion and destruction — this, then, is the difference among severing, departing from, suppressing, and turning away from.

As it is said, "monks, through a breach in the Dharma there comes a breach in the Vinaya, and through a breach in the Vinaya there comes a breach in the Dharma," and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for the sūtra states that, in a future age, there will be monks who do not cultivate body, moral discipline, mind, or wisdom, and that such monks, failing to cultivate body, moral discipline, mind, and wisdom, thereby bring about a breach in the Dharma, and so on at length. Although the sūtra speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter — what is the Dharma, what is the Vinaya, and what is meant by a breach in the Dharma, and so on at length.

Since that sūtra serves as the very foundation this treatise relies upon, what it leaves unexplained ought now to be fully explained, and it is for this reason that this treatise is composed. What is the Dharma? Answer: the eightfold noble path. What is the Vinaya? Answer: the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion. What is meant by a breach in the Dharma bringing about a breach in the Vinaya, and a breach in the Vinaya bringing about a breach in the Dharma? Answer: when the eightfold noble path is not cultivated, one is thereby unable to realize the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion; and when the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion is not realized, one is thereby unable to cultivate the eightfold noble path — and it is on account of this causal relation that this is said. As for the word "breach" here: some say it denotes contentment; some say it denotes ruin. If it denotes contentment, then the statement that a breach in the Dharma brings about a breach in the Vinaya means this: that one who becomes content with the path of seeing is thereby unable to cultivate the path of cultivation, and, failing to cultivate the path of cultivation, is thereby unable to realize the severance of the afflictions abandoned by cultivation — and this is how a breach in the Dharma brings about a breach in the Vinaya. And what is meant by a breach in the Vinaya bringing about a breach in the Dharma? That one who becomes content with the severance of the afflictions abandoned by seeing is thereby unable to realize the severance of the afflictions abandoned by cultivation, and, failing to realize this severance, is thereby unable to cultivate the path of cultivation — and this is how a breach in the Vinaya brings about a breach in the Dharma. If, instead, "breach" denotes ruin, then it is said that, by ruining the noble path, one is unable to realize the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion, and hence a breach in the Dharma is said to bring about a breach in the Vinaya; and, by ruining the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion, one is thereby unable to cultivate the noble path, and hence a breach in the Vinaya is said to bring about a breach in the Dharma. Question: the noble path and cessation itself are without fault and cannot be ruined — how, then, can one speak of "ruining" the noble path and cessation? Answer: it is the continuum of these that is said to be ruined, not their own intrinsic substance, which indeed cannot be ruined — that is, through the manifestation of affliction before the mind, the continuum is ruined; through the ruin of the continuum, the noble path is rendered ever more remote; and, through the noble path's own remoteness, one becomes unable to realize the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion, and it is on this account that "ruin" is spoken of. As the sūtra states, "this is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's own instruction" — Question: what difference is there among these three? Answer: the Dharma refers to the eightfold noble path; the Vinaya refers to the extinction of greed, hatred, and delusion; and the Teacher's own instruction refers to the Buddha's own word. Some say: the Dharma refers to the Abhidharma-piṭaka;

the Vinaya refers to the Vinaya-piṭaka; and the Teacher's own instruction refers to the Sūtra-piṭaka — this, then, is the difference among these three.

As it is said, "practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma," and so on at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to elucidate the meaning of a sūtra passage — for the sūtra speaks of "practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma," yet, although it speaks in this way, it does not explain the matter — what is the Dharma, what is that which accords with the Dharma, and what is practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma? 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. What is the Dharma? Answer: tranquil nirvāṇa. What accords with the Dharma? Answer: the eightfold noble path. What is practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma? Answer: acting in accordance with the meaning of these — that is, cultivating the eightfold noble path for the sake of seeking nirvāṇa is what is named practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma; and one who is able to abide firmly in this is named one who practices the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma. Question: why is nirvāṇa alone named "the Dharma," while the eightfold noble path is named "that which accords with the Dharma"? Answer: because, among all dharmas, nirvāṇa is supreme, unassailable by birth, old age, sickness, or death, it alone earns the name "Dharma"; the eightfold noble path comes next after it and accords with it, as a minister accords with a king, and it is hence named "that which accords with the Dharma." Hence a sūtra states that, among all dharmas, nirvāṇa is supreme, and, among conditioned dharmas, the noble path is supreme. Yet, in the sūtra praising Śāriputra's own training, it is said, "venerable sir, I shall now speak of the Dharma and that which accords with the Dharma — namely, freedom from bondage"; in that sūtra, the noble path itself is named "the Dharma," and nirvāṇa is named "that which accords with the Dharma," since one first attains the noble path and only afterward realizes nirvāṇa. The former sūtra displays the Dharma and that which accords with it according to their relative superiority and inferiority, whereas the latter sūtra displays them according to the order in which they are actually realized. Furthermore, the prātimokṣa itself is named "the Dharma," and the prātimokṣa restraint is named "that which accords with the Dharma"; acting in accordance with the meaning of these is named practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma — that is, undertaking the prātimokṣa restraint for the sake of seeking the prātimokṣa itself, and, having undertaken it, guarding it thereafter without any transgression, is named practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma, and one who is able to abide firmly in this is named one who practices the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma. Furthermore, bodily restraint, verbal restraint, and purity of livelihood are named "the Dharma," and undertaking these is named "that which accords with the Dharma"; acting in accordance with the meaning of these is named practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma — that is, undertaking, and, having undertaken, guarding thereafter, bodily restraint, verbal restraint, and purity of livelihood for the sake of seeking them, is named practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma,

and one who is able to abide firmly in this is named one who practices the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma. Question: bodily restraint, verbal restraint, and purity of livelihood are already subsumed under the prātimokṣa restraint itself — why, then, are they spoken of again separately? Answer: the former statement was undifferentiated, while this one is differentiated; the former was a general statement, while this one is a particular statement. Some say: the former is subsumed under moral discipline and under excellent conduct, but not under freedom from moral discipline's own bondage, whereas this one is subsumed under moral discipline, under excellent conduct, and also under freedom from moral discipline's own bondage. Some say: the former displays what is generated, while this one displays what generates it; the former guards what is generated in order to guard what generates it, whereas this one guards what generates it in order to guard what is generated. Some say: the former guards the cause by following through in guarding the effect, whereas this one guards the effect by following through in guarding the cause — just as with cause and effect, so too with agent and action. Here, the manifest form of the prātimokṣa moral discipline, together with its unmanifest form arising in the very first moment, is moral discipline, is restraint, is excellent conduct, is the prātimokṣa itself, is the prātimokṣa restraint, is karma, and is a course of karma; whereas the subsequent unmanifest form is moral discipline, is restraint, is excellent conduct, and is the prātimokṣa restraint,

yet is not the prātimokṣa itself nor the initial liberation, and hence is karma but not a course of karma, since the culminating volition does not operate with respect to it. As it is said, "venerable ones, I shall now recite the prātimokṣa; listen carefully, all of you" — here, what dharma is named "prātimokṣa"? Is it moral discipline itself, or is it the very words of the one reciting the precepts? If it is moral discipline itself, moral discipline cannot be spoken — why, then, does one say, "I shall now recite the prātimokṣa"? And if it is the words of the one reciting the precepts, these may be spoken with a wholesome mind, or with an unwholesome or neutral mind — how, then, is the Vinaya's own statement to be reconciled, where it says that the prātimokṣa serves as the very head, the foremost, and the forerunner of every wholesome dharma? Some say: it is moral discipline itself. Question: moral discipline cannot be spoken — how, then, can one say, "I shall now recite it"? Answer: it is spoken of in this way with reference to a chain of successive causes, just as one speaks of "the way of sons and grandsons," meaning that speech is able to give rise to a name, and a name is able to reveal its meaning. Some say: it is the words of the one reciting the precepts. Question: these may be spoken with a wholesome mind, or with an unwholesome or neutral mind —

how, then, can it be said to serve as the head, the foremost, and the forerunner of every wholesome dharma? Answer: that statement in the Vinaya is made with reference to its role as an unobstructing cause — that is, whatever mind the one reciting the precepts recites them with, if the listener is able to practice accordingly as recited, this is able to serve, for him, as an unobstructing cause for every one of his own virtues, and it is on this account that the prātimokṣa is said to serve as the head, the foremost, and the like, of every wholesome dharma.