俱舍論記 25

English (machine translation) 25

Language: English

25.2

Chapter 6: Exposition of the Noble Ones, Part 4

Regarding "As explained before ... is there a distinction?": below this, the fifth [topic] clarifies the six lineages. Within this: first, clarifying the six arhats; second, clarifying the sequence of the six lineages; third, clarifying falling away from lineage and from fruit; fourth, clarifying the lineages of learners and ordinary beings; fifth, clarifying the differences among the three kinds of falling away; sixth, clarifying the marks of the time of falling away from the fruit; seventh, clarifying differences in training the faculties; eighth, clarifying the nine non-learners. This is the first: clarifying the six arhats. It takes up what came before to introduce the question.

25.4

Regarding "There are also [distinctions]": this is the answer.

25.5

Regarding "What are they?": this is the query.

25.6

Regarding "The verse says ... arise from the preceding attained-by-vision": this answers in verse.

25.7

Regarding "The treatise says ... the sixth is the immovable dharma": this explains the first two lines. It states their number and lists their names. Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra 67 says: "However, other sūtras say that there are nine non-learners, from the first who is of falling-away dharma to the last who is doubly liberated. Their non-falling dharma is subsumed under this 'immovable'; their two liberations are common to all six here; therefore the Abhidharma explains only six kinds" (end of śāstra passage).

25.8

Regarding "Among these six ... only then enters concentration": this explains the third and fourth lines. Among these six lineages, the preceding five arise from the lineage of dull faculties in the prior stage of learning, the lineage resolved through faith. These five are collectively called the "temporarily cherished mental liberation." Because they always cherish and protect the dharmas they have attained, they are called "temporarily cherished"; and because the mind is liberated from the bondage of afflictions, it is called "mental liberation." Possessing these two meanings, it is called "temporarily cherished mental liberation." Although learners of dull faculties always cherish and protect, their minds are not liberated; although non-learners of sharp faculties have liberated minds, they do not always cherish and protect; each lacks one meaning, so they are not called "temporarily cherished mental liberation." This temporarily cherished mental liberation is also called "temporal liberation" because it requires awaiting the right time to be able to enter concentration and to be able to liberate from the bondage of afflictions; possessing these two meanings, it is called "temporal liberation." Although learners of dull faculties must await the time, they are not liberated; although non-learners of sharp faculties are liberated, they need not await the time; each lacks one meaning, so they are not called "temporally liberated." Fully expressed, one should say "liberation awaiting the time"; omitting the initial word "awaiting," one simply says "temporal liberation." It is like saying "ghee jar": fully expressed, one should say "a jar containing ghee"; omitting the initial word "containing," one simply says "ghee jar." Thus those of dull faculties must await superior conditions of time before they can enter concentration. Speaking of "superior conditions of time," it means awaiting provisions. There are three provisions: first, good clothing; second, good food; third, good bedding. A place free from illness is a good place. "Etc." means including gaining good exposition of the Dharma and gaining good companions. When these six kinds of superior conditions come together, only then can they enter concentration. Therefore Mahāvibhāṣā 101 says: "Although times are manifold, briefly there are six kinds: first, the time of obtaining good clothing; second, the time of obtaining good food; third, the time of obtaining good bedding; fourth, the time of obtaining a good place; fifth, the time of obtaining good exposition of the Dharma; sixth, the time of obtaining a good individual (as explained in detail there)."

25.9

Regarding "The lineage of the immovable dharma ... arises from the lineage attained-by-vision": this explains the latter two lines. Among the six lineages, the lineage of the immovable dharma is spoken of as the last; this very one is called "immovable mental liberation." Because it is not shaken into falling away by afflictions, and because the mind is liberated from the bondage of afflictions, possessing these two meanings it is called "immovable mental liberation." Although learners of sharp faculties have no falling away, their minds are not liberated; although non-learners of dull faculties have liberated minds, they have falling away; each lacks one meaning, so they are not called "immovable mental liberation." It is also called "non-temporal liberation" because without awaiting the time it can enter concentration, and because the mind can be liberated from the bondage of afflictions; possessing these two meanings it is called "non-temporal liberation." Although learners of sharp faculties do not await the time, they are not liberated; although non-learners of dull faculties are liberated, they are not without awaiting the time; each lacks one meaning, so they are not called "non-temporally liberated." Speaking of "not awaiting the time," it means samādhi manifests at will, without awaiting the combination of the aforementioned six superior conditions of time. Another explanation is given: or, it is based on temporary liberation that the name "temporal liberation" is established, because there are times when falling away is possible. It is based on ultimate liberation that the name "non-temporal liberation" is established, because there is no time of falling away. This immovable lineage arises from the lineage attained-by-vision in the prior stage of learning. If one explains "mental liberation" according to the Mahāvibhāṣā, mental liberation takes resolute determination (adhimukti) as its intrinsic nature. Therefore Mahāvibhāṣā 101 says: "What is the temporarily cherished mental liberation? Answer: It is the knowledge of exhaustion of an arhat of temporal liberation; or the mind associated with the right view of a non-learner, [whether it] resolves, has resolved, or will resolve. What is the immovable mental liberation? Answer: It is the knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising of an arhat of the immovable dharma; or the mind associated with the right view of a non-learner, [whether it] resolves, has resolved, or will resolve. Here, 'the mind associated with knowledge of exhaustion, knowledge of non-arising, and the right view of a non-learner' excludes learners and minds with outflows. 'Resolves' refers to the present; 'has resolved' refers to the past; 'will resolve' refers to the future. This distinguishes it from unconditioned liberation, showing that the two liberations have as their intrinsic nature only resolute determination associated with the unpolluted mind of a non-learner."

25.10

Regarding "As thus clarified ... or are they attained later?": below this, the second [topic] clarifies the sequence of lineages. Question: Regarding the six lineages of non-learners, are they already possessed in the learner stage, or are they attained later as non-learners?

25.11

Regarding "It is not fixed": this is the answer.

25.12

Regarding "How so?": this is the query.

25.13

Regarding "The verse says ... some are attained later by training the faculties": this answers in verse.

25.14

Regarding "The treatise says ... should be stated accordingly": this directly explains the verse text. In the stage of no-learning, the lineage of falling-away dharma must have already existed in the learner stage; the five beginning with deliberating dharma are also attained later upon reaching no-learning. That is, there are those who were originally of the deliberating dharma lineage in the learner stage, and upon later reaching no-learning are also of the deliberating dharma lineage. Or there are those who were of the falling-away dharma lineage in the prior learner stage, and later, in the stage of no-learning, train their faculties to become deliberating. As it is with deliberating, so it should be stated accordingly up to immovable.

25.15

Regarding "The one of falling-away dharma ... that one definitely has no falling away": this individually explains the distinct differences among the six lineages. "Falling-away dharma" means that upon encountering minor conditions one immediately falls away from what was attained; it is not that those of deliberating dharma and the rest fall away upon encountering minor conditions. "Deliberating dharma" means that out of fear of falling away from the virtues obtained, one strikes one's head with a knife and constantly deliberates on killing oneself. "Guarding dharma" means that because of fear of falling away from what was attained, one takes joy in guarding oneself. "Abiding dharma" means that apart from powerful conditions for falling away, even without guarding oneself one does not fall away; and apart from superior preparatory effort, one also does not advance; mostly abiding in one's own position, it is called "abiding." "Capable-of-advancement dharma" means that one's nature is capable and well-suited to practicing the training of faculties to quickly reach the immovable. "Immovable dharma" means that because one is not moved into falling away, that one definitely has no falling away.

25.16

Regarding "These six lineages ... possess both preparatory efforts": this further explains the differences among the six lineages. "Constant" means long-term cultivation. "Respectful" means vehement, preeminent, and earnest when arising. The first two lack both, and the last two possess both, because their faculties differ. The rest of the text is clear.

25.17

Regarding "The lineage of falling-away dharma ... exist across all three realms": this individually explains the establishment of the names. Among the six lineages, the preceding five are established in name merely based on possibility; therefore, the six arhats exist across all three realms.

25.18

Regarding "If one insists that falling away ... therefore there are only two": this sets forth and refutes a divergent view. If one insists that the preceding five must fall away and so forth, then in the desire realm all six kinds could be present. But in the upper two realms there should be only two—abiding and immovable—without the other four. Since there is no falling away there, there would be no falling-away lineage; since there is no killing oneself there, there would be no deliberating lineage; since there is no guarding oneself there, there would be no guarding lineage; since there is no training of faculties there, there would be no capable-of-advancement lineage; therefore there would be only two.

25.19

Regarding "Among these six kinds ... five from the fruit, not originally": this is the third [topic], clarifying falling away from lineage and fruit. Question: Among these six kinds of arhats, who falls away from what? Is it falling away from lineage, or falling away from the fruit? The question and the answer in verse.

25.20

Regarding 'The treatise says… yet none of them are the initial [stage]': this is a general statement explaining the verse. Among the six spiritual families, the unshakeable (akopya) family definitely has no principle of falling away from its family or falling away from its fruit; the preceding five kinds all possess the meaning of falling away. Among the preceding five, the latter four, beginning with deliberation (cetanā), all have the meaning of being capable of falling away from their spiritual family, as when one falls away from capable of penetration (prativedhanā-bhabba) and so forth to abiding (sthitākampya) and so forth. The single [family] of the dharma of falling away (parihāṇa-dharma) has no principle of falling away from its spiritual family, because this spiritual family is at the very lowest level, and there is no further place to fall away to. All five kinds possess the meaning of falling away from the fruit. Although the four beginning with deliberation all possess the meaning of both falling away from the family and falling away from the fruit, nonetheless none of them are the initial [stage]. The reason it does not mention the initial [family of] the dharma of falling away is that the initial [family of] the dharma of falling away does possess the meaning of falling away from the fruit; therefore, this text says 'yet none of them are the initial [stage]' so as not to include the dharma of falling away. Alternatively, when this text says 'none of them are the initial [stage]', it speaks in terms of the majority, whereas in truth the dharma of falling away also falls away from the fruit even initially.

25.21

Regarding 'Namely, all those who are beyond training… there is indeed reason for falling away': this specifically explains falling away and not falling away from the spiritual family. Namely, for all those beyond training (aśaikṣa), as for the four spiritual families beginning with deliberation in which they previously abided during the stage of training (śaikṣa), there is definitely no principle of their falling away from that family, because it was accomplished through the two paths of training and beyond training, and is extremely firm and stable. If for all those in training, as for the four spiritual families beginning with deliberation in which they previously abided during the worldly ordinary stage, there is also no principle of their falling away from that family, because it was accomplished through the two paths of the worldly and the supramundane, and is extremely firm and stable. The text directly explains those beyond training, and incidentally clarifies those in training as well. If, while abiding in the stage beyond training or abiding in the stage of training, one subsequently cultivates the refining of the faculties from the family of falling away, as for the four spiritual families beginning with deliberation thereby obtained, there is indeed reason for them to fall away from that family, because this spiritual family was not accomplished through two paths and is not firm and stable.

25.22

Regarding 'In the two initial stages… there is the meaning of falling away from the fruit': this specifically explains falling away and not falling away from the fruit. As for the words 'the two initial stages', the first is the initial stage of training, and the second is the initial ordinary stage. That is to say, for all those beyond training who abided in the four [families] beginning with deliberation in the previous stage of training, they also definitely do not fall away from this fruit of non-training, because this family was accomplished through the two paths and is firm. If for all those in training who abided in the four beginning with deliberation in the previous ordinary stage, they also definitely do not fall away from this fruit of training, because this family was accomplished through the two paths and is firm. Only the family of the dharma of falling away from the previous stage of training has the meaning of falling away from the fruit when reaching the stage beyond training. Only the family of the dharma of falling away from the previous ordinary stage has the meaning of falling away from the fruit upon reaching the subsequent stage of training. In the stage beyond training and in the stage of training, there are some who abide in the family of falling away and have the meaning of falling away from the fruit. Although falling away was obtained previously, it was also accomplished through two paths; yet because the family is the most inferior and is of the dharma of falling away, there is indeed [the possibility of] falling away from the fruit. Or, upon reaching the stage beyond training or the stage of training, if one is subsequently able to cultivate the refining of the faculties from the family of falling away and obtains the four beginning with deliberation, there is also [the possibility of] falling away from the fruit, because this family was not accomplished through two paths and is not firm and stable. Although in the falling away from the fruit in non-training and training the five families differ, it can in all cases be said that only the initial dharma of falling away has the meaning of falling away from the fruit. In accordance with the above meaning of falling away from the family and falling away from the fruit, it should be known that there are definitely two. For those who abide in the families beginning with deliberation in the initial stages, when reaching the subsequent stages beyond training or of training, if they cultivate the practice of refining the faculties from the three beginning with deliberation and obtain the three beginning with preservation (anurakṣaṇā), they may all fall away from the family; and when the transformed [family of] preservation and so forth advances to obtain the fruits of training, they also have [the possibility of] falling away from the fruit. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle sixty-eight, says: 'When they cultivate the practice of refining the faculties from deliberation and so forth and transform to obtain preservation and so forth, they can only fall away from the family. When advancing to obtain the fruit of training through the transformed, newly obtained family, there is also the meaning of falling away. This is because this spiritual family was not accomplished through two paths and is not firm and stable.'

25.23

Regarding 'Moreover, there is also no falling away… it would be an advance and not a falling away': this explains the meaning of falling away from the fruit with respect to the four fruits. Although all five spiritual families may fall away from the fruit, moreover, there is also no falling away from the fruit initially obtained. Among the four fruits, whichever is obtained first is definitely not fallen away from. The fruit of stream-entry (srotāpanna), if obtained, is necessarily obtained first; for those who realize once-return (sakṛdāgāmin) or non-return (anāgāmin) by leaping over, these are also obtained first; the fruits obtained later admit of falling away. If one takes the first fruit as the initial one, then the second, third, and fourth fruits are subsequent. If one takes the second fruit as the initial one, then the third and fourth fruits are subsequent. If one takes the third fruit as the initial one, then the fourth fruit is subsequent. Therefore, there is definitely no falling away from the fruit of stream-entry, because the fruit of stream-entry is necessarily obtained first; here it is stated specifically. Because once-return and non-return are not fixed, they are not separately cited. It should be known that stream-entry is only initial and not subsequent; arhatship is only subsequent and not initial; once-return and non-return both extend to the initial and the subsequent. Because of this principle that there is no falling away from the initially obtained fruit and that one falls away from subsequent fruits, the dharma of falling away in the fruit of arhatship has three [possibilities]: first, progressing in faculties; second, falling away to abide in training; third, entering parinirvāṇa while abiding in one's own level. It only says 'falling away to abide in the stage of training' and does not say 'falling away to abide as an ordinary person'; through this it is clearly known that one does not fall away from the first fruit. The deliberation-dharma has four [possibilities]: three are as previously stated, with the addition of one kind, namely falling away to abide in the family of falling away; the remaining three follow in sequence. The preservation-dharma has five: four are as previously stated, with the addition of one kind, namely falling away to abide in the family of deliberation. The abiding-dharma has six: five are as previously stated, with the addition of one kind, namely falling away to abide in the family of preservation. The capable of penetration-dharma has seven: six are as previously stated, with the addition of one kind, namely falling away to abide in the family of abiding. When the four beginning with the deliberation-dharma fall away to abide in the stage of training, they return to abide in their prior family of falling away, and not in the remaining four beginning with deliberation. If it were otherwise, their previous stage of training was the family of falling away; if they now fell away to abide in training in the four families beginning with deliberation, they would be obtaining a superior spiritual family, and so it would be an advance and not a falling away.

25.24

Regarding 'For what reason is there definitely no falling away for one who has an initial fruit?': from here down, the dispute among the various schools concerning falling away and not falling away from the four fruits is clarified. If one relies on the Sarvāstivāda, the first fruit is not fallen away from, while the latter three fruits admit of falling away, as explained in detail previously. The question is: For what reason is there definitely no falling away for one who has an initial fruit?

25.25

Regarding 'Because what is abandoned by seeing… there is definitely no principle of falling away': this is the Sarvāstivāda's answer. Because what is abandoned by seeing is based on the absence of real entities, there is definitely no principle of falling away.

25.26

Regarding 'If so, one should say that these defilements take nonexistence as their object': this is an objection. Since there is no real entity of a self, one should say that they take nonexistence as their object.

25.27

Regarding 'It is not that this takes nonexistence as an object… does not cognize it in accordance with reality': this resolves [the objection]. It is not that this view of self takes nonexistent phenomena as its object, because the truths are its domain; rather, it does not cognize the domain of the truths in accordance with reality.

25.28

Regarding 'Among all defilements, which one is not like this?': this is a query.

25.29

Regarding 'Although all are like this… defilements based on real entities': this explains the distinctions between having real entities and lacking real entities. 'Agent' refers to being able to construct the world. 'Experiencer' refers to being able to enjoy and use the world. This is because one obtains mastery within this constructing and experiencing. Toward pleasing objects, greed and attachment arise; toward unpleasing objects, anger, hatred, and aversion arise; toward inferior, equal, and superior objects, conceit and self-exaltation arise; toward real entities, due to lack of comprehension, ignorance arises. The remainder of the text is easy to understand.

25.30

Regarding 'Moreover, defilements abandoned by seeing… defilements based on real entities': this is another explanation of the distinction between having and lacking real entities. Furthermore, regarding the defilements abandoned by seeing, with respect to the principle of the truths: the view of personal identity grasps a self and what belongs to a self; extreme views grasp annihilation or eternity; wrong view grasps nonexistence. 'And so forth' includes attachment to views, attachment to precepts and vows, ignorance, and doubt. These seven all arise from delusion regarding the principle of the truths; there is no subtle entity such as a self within the truths. Among those abandoned by seeing, the three of greed, anger, and conceit arise with these seven as their condition; therefore, they are all called defilements based on the lack of a real entity. Concomitant ignorance is as explained for greed and the others. As for defilements abandoned by cultivation, regarding form and so forth they suppose beauty, ugliness, and so forth; it is not that there is no subtle distinction of beauty, ugliness, and so on; therefore, they can be called defilements based on real entities.

25.31

Regarding 'Moreover, defilements abandoned by seeing… there is falling away through loss of mindfulness': this is another explanation of why abandoning defilements deluded about principle does not lead to falling away, while abandoning defilements deluded about real entities admits of falling away.

25.32

Regarding 'Or, defilements abandoned by cultivation… there is definitely no meaning of falling away': this is another explanation: defilements of cultivation are not generated through deliberation, so noble ones can fall away and have them arise; defilements of seeing are generated through deliberation, so noble ones do not fall away from them. The above is the Sarvāstivāda's clarification of the meaning that the initially obtained fruit is not fallen away from.

25.33

Regarding 'The Sautrāntika masters say… their statement is reasonable': from here down, the Sautrāntikas clarify falling away and not falling away with respect to the four fruits. The author of the treatise agrees with the Sautrāntikas, and so says 'their statement is reasonable'. The intent of the Sautrāntika is: stream-entry and arhatship are abandoned solely by noble wisdom, and definitely have no falling away. Once-return and non-return, when obtained through the mundane path, also admit of falling away; when abandoned through the uncontaminated path, they likewise do not fall away. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle sixty-eight, says: 'However, the master of the treatise speaks thus: The fruit of arhatship also has no falling away. Once-return and non-return, when obtained through the mundane path, have the meaning of falling away. Sūtras are cited to prove that abandonment of defilements through noble wisdom is called real abandonment; the initial and final fruits are realized solely by abandoning defilements through noble wisdom, and therefore have no principle of falling away.'

25.34

Regarding 'How is it known to be so?': this is a question.

25.35

Regarding 'From scripture and reasoning': this is the Sautrāntika's answer.

25.36

Regarding 'How is it from scripture?': this is a probing question.

25.37

Regarding 'The sūtra says, "Monks… not an arhat"': this is the answer. The sūtra says: Abandoning defilements through uncontaminated noble wisdom is called real abandonment. The fruit of arhatship is abandoned solely by noble wisdom; since it is called real abandonment, it is clearly known that there is no falling away. The sūtra admonishes those in training that they should be diligent, fearing that those in training might fall away. It does not say that arhats should be diligent, so it is clearly known that they do not fall away.

25.38

Regarding 'Although a sūtra says… pleasant abidings in the present life': the Sautrāntikas reconcile the scriptural passages. Although a sūtra says the Buddha told Ānanda: 'I say that gain and honor also obstruct an arhat.' Although there is this statement, it does not speak of falling away from the uncontaminated dharmas of the fruit of arhatship; it only speaks of falling away from the contaminated absorptions that are pleasant abidings in the present life.

25.39

Regarding 'A sūtra says: "Unshakeable… falling away from this"': the Sautrāntikas cite proof. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'Unshaken by defilements, the liberation of mind from defilements is realized cessation within the body; I definitely say there are no causes or conditions for falling away from this.' Unshakeable is precisely the fruit of arhatship, and so it is known that there is no falling away.

25.40

Regarding 'If it is held that there is falling away… therefore it is not called cherished': the Sautrāntikas take up the defense and resolve it. If it is held that there is falling away because the sūtras speak of occasional liberation (samaya-vimukti) and cherished liberation (samaya-vimukti / kāmayā vimukti), I also grant that there is falling away. But one must investigate what it is that is fallen away from: Is it the uncontaminated nature of the fruit of arhatship? Or is it contaminated dhyāna and so forth? In our school, we say that when there is falling away, it is falling away from contaminated absorption. This occasional liberation is spoken of with reference to contaminated absorption. Further explaining the names, it is said: Because for dull-rooted persons, those fundamental four dhyānas and formless absorptions can only be brought into presence by waiting for a favorable time, being liberated from the obstacles to absorption is called occasional liberation. Because they wish to obtain pleasant abiding in the present life and frequently long for it to become present through wholesome desire for the Dharma, it is called cherished. Some say: this contaminated absorption is the object of craving and relish for them, and so it is called cherished. The explanation of occasional liberation should be understood as before. The uncontaminated fruit-nature of all arhats is liberated from defilements and constantly accompanies them at all times; therefore, it should not be called occasional. Since it constantly accompanies them, they are fulfilled and do not yearn for anything further; therefore, it is not called cherished.

25.41

"If the nature of the fruit of the arhat […] should be contemplated in accordance with reason": this is the counter-objection of the Sautrāntika. If it is said that even the nature of the uncontaminated fruit of the arhat might admit of falling away in the case of those of dull faculties, why did the World-Honoured One only state that the contaminated absorptions, the pleasant dwellings in this present life that are attained, have a principle by which they can be fallen away from, and not state [this of] the uncontaminated? From this it is proven and known that the nature of the fruit of the arhat must be unshakeable, and what is unshakeable definitely does not fall away or shake. However, because of the faults of distraction caused by material gain and so forth, there are those who fall away from mastery over the pleasant dwelling in this present life that has been attained and do not possess it; this falling away from mastery refers to those of dull faculties. If they are of sharp faculties, then there is no falling away regarding the pleasant dwelling in this present life. Therefore, because there is falling away regarding the pleasant dwelling in this present life that has been attained, the first is named "one of the nature to fall away" (parihāṇa-dharman); because there is no falling away, the sixth is named "one of the nature not to fall away" (aparihāṇa-dharman). The four lineages such as "cetanā-dharman" and so forth should be contemplated in accordance with reason. Because there is falling away, it is named "cetanā-dharman"; because there is no falling away, the sixth is named "aparihāṇa-dharman". Thus up to: because there is falling away, it is named "prativedhanā-dharman"; because there is no falling away, the sixth is named "aparihāṇa-dharman". The sixth is also named "akopya-dharman" (unshakeable). The Sautrāntika explains the differences among the six lineages solely with respect to contaminated absorption; if one relies on the aspect of the uncontaminated fruit, it is only unshakeable, without six distinctions and without falling away. Another explanation: having falling away is named the first, parihāṇa-dharman; having no falling away is named the sixth, aparihāṇa-dharman. The four such as cetanā-dharman and so forth should be contemplated in accordance with reason. However, all admit of falling away from the pleasant dwelling in this present life: having cetanā is named the second, cetanā-dharman; lacking cetanā is named a-cetanā-dharman, which is the sixth. Thus up to: having prativedhanā is named the fifth, prativedhanā-dharman; lacking prativedhanā is named a-prativedhanā, which is the sixth.

25.42

"What is the distinction between non-falling away, dwelling steadfastly, and unshakeable?": this is a question. The sixth, aparihāṇa-dharman, is also named akopya-dharman, and the fourth, sthitākampya, is similar in meaning to these three; what is the distinction?

25.43

"It is not obtained through training the faculties […] the threefold distinction": this is the answer of the Sautrāntika. Aparihāṇa is obtained by original nature, not by training the faculties; if it is obtained by training the faculties, it is named akopya. The contaminated virtues and excellent meditative attainments produced by these two do not fall away when encountering conditions. Sthitākampya merely has no falling away among the excellent contaminated virtues in which one already dwells, but cannot further induce the arising of other superior contaminated virtues; later, if they are further induced to arise, one can fall away from them. These are the three distinctions.

25.44

"However, as for Godhika […] the fruit of the arhat": the Sautrāntika further explains the sūtra. Why it is necessary to explain this scriptural text: the Sarvāstivāda's intention is that there was an arhat named Godhika who, because of dull faculties, fell away six times from being an arhat, and upon attaining the fruit of the arhat for the seventh time, fearing he would fall away again, took his own life with a knife. Therefore [the Sautrāntika] now explains: however, as for Godhika's falling away six times, formerly in the stage of a trainee (śaikṣa), he relished the temporary liberation of contaminated absorption intensely and was also of dull faculties; thus he fell away six times, deeply reproached himself, and took his own life with a knife. Because he had no longing or attachment to his body and life, when approaching the end of his life for the seventh time, he attained the state of an arhat and entered parinirvāṇa. Therefore, Godhika only fell away from contaminated absorption in the stage of a trainee, and did not fall away from the fruit of the arhat. Godhika belonged to the cowherd lineage. Paramārtha also says: "Godhika is translated here as 'earthen vessel' (ghatika); he was originally an outsider who always carried an earthen vessel with him, and was named after this original [habit]."

25.45

"Furthermore, the Daśottara-sūtra […] is not the nature of the fruit of the arhat": the Sautrāntika cites a sūtra to prove that the nature of the fruit of the arhat is not temporary liberation. "Daśottara" (increasing by ten) means increasing from one Dharma-gate up to ten; hence it is named Daśottara-sūtra. Furthermore, the Daśottara-sūtra in the Āgama states: 'One dharma should be given rise to: namely, the contaminated absorption of temporary, cherished mental liberation (samaya-kāntā ceto-vimuktiḥ). One dharma should be realized: namely, all uncontaminated unshakeable mental liberation (akopyā ceto-vimuktiḥ).' The sūtra's reproaches can be known according to the text. Therefore, temporary liberation is exclusively contaminated, not the nature of the fruit of the arhat. It is alternately named 'temporary liberation' (samaya-vimukti), or named 'temporary cherished liberation' (samaya-kāntā-vimukti), or named 'temporary cherished mental liberation' (samaya-kāntā ceto-vimuktiḥ); the differences are only in brevity and detail, while their meanings are all similar. Awaiting its time and repeatedly aspiring, the mind becomes liberated from the hindrances to concentration; thus it is called 'temporary cherished mental liberation'. Non-temporary liberation should be understood accordingly. If one speaks of unshakeable mental liberation, it is the uncontaminated fruit of the arhat; having no falling away or shaking, the mind is liberated from defilement.

25.46

"If so, why is it spoken of as an arhat of temporary liberation?": this is the objection of the Sarvāstivāda. If temporary liberation is not the entity of the fruit of the arhat, why is it spoken of as an arhat of temporary liberation?

25.47

"That is to say, there are arhats […] is named non-temporary liberation": this is the answer of the Sautrāntika. That is to say, because there are arhats whose faculties are dull and must await the time, the contaminated absorptions only then present themselves; hence they are named 'temporary liberation'—it does not mean that temporary liberation is the nature of the fruit of the arhat. If it is contrary to that, it is named an arhat of non-temporary liberation, which can be understood according to the explanation.

25.48

"Abhidharma […] this is called 'by scripture'": the Sautrāntika further cites the teaching of the treatises to prove that the aśaikṣa does not fall away from the fruit. The treatise states that only when the three causes are complete can defilement arise; an arhat giving rise to defilement would not possess the three causes, so it is clearly known that they do not fall away. If it is said that that is stated with respect to the arising of defilement with the three causes complete, then what defiled dharma could arise without the causes being complete? If it is said that when an aśaikṣa falls away and defilement arises, it arises without the causes being complete, since the defilement has already been severed, how could it arise? This is examining and demanding by reason that the causes must be complete. Another explanation: if it is said that that is stated with respect to arising with the three causes complete, what other dharma could arise without the causes being complete? For instance, defiled minds and mental factors must arise with the five causes complete; none can arise without the five being complete. The arising of defilement through the three causes should be known to be the same. This is demanding by analogy; this is called 'by scripture'.

25.49

"How is it 'by reason'?": this is a question.

25.50

"If an arhat […] this is called 'by reason'": this is the answer of the Sautrāntika. If an arhat possesses the uncontaminated path of remedy that has already arisen and truly severed defilements so that they never arise again, then they should not fall away and give rise to defilement. If the arhat's path of remedy has not yet arisen and has not been able to pull out the seeds of defilement forever, they should not be one whose contaminations are exhausted (kṣīṇāsrava). If their contaminations are not exhausted, how can they be called an arhat? Questioning and pressing from both sides, an arhat definitely has no falling away; this is called 'by reason'.

25.51

"If so, you must explain […] is an arhat": the Sarvāstivāda further cites a sūtra to object. If you say that the fruit of the arhat definitely does not fall away, you must explain the text of the Charcoal Simile Sūtra (Aṅgāropama-sūtra). Since this sūtra says, 'Noble disciples sometimes lose mindfulness and give rise to unwholesome thoughts,' it is clearly known that the fruit of the arhat also admits of falling away. How is it known that that is the fruit of the arhat? Because this sūtra speaks exclusively of arhats. Furthermore, by what text is the fruit of the arhat proven and known? Because this Charcoal Simile Sūtra says: 'That noble disciple's mind has for a long night conformed to seclusion, and so forth.' Since it says 'conformed to seclusion', it is clearly known to be the fruit of the arhat. How is it further known that 'conforming to seclusion' is an arhat? In other sūtras, this 'conforming to seclusion and so forth' is stated to be the power of an arhat. Furthermore, this Charcoal Simile Sūtra says that that noble disciple has already been able to vomit up completely all that conforms to contamination, showing that they are able to sever all contaminations forever. 'Has already attained coolness' shows that they have already attained cool nirvāṇa. From this it is definitely known that the Charcoal Simile Sūtra speaks of an arhat.

25.52

"In fact, what is stated later […] so the statement has no fault": the Sautrāntika explains the sūtra. In fact, what is stated later—or what is stated in the later text of the Charcoal Simile Sūtra—namely, having already been able to vomit up completely and having already attained coolness, is an arhat. However, the noble disciples in the earlier text of the Charcoal Simile cited by them have not yet thoroughly comprehended the principle of the Four Noble Truths when walking or standing, and sometimes lose mindfulness and give rise to unwholesome thoughts; this may indeed happen. That is, trainees—once-returners and non-returners—who have attained those two fruits through the worldly path, may give rise to defilement when walking or standing because of losing mindfulness. Later, when they sever the remaining defilements of cultivation through noble wisdom and accomplish the fruit of the aśaikṣa, thoroughly comprehending the principle of the Truths, there is no sense of [defilements] arising. The previously cited scriptural text speaks of falling away with respect to the stage of a trainee, so there is no fault; or [it refers to] what is stated in the earlier text of the Charcoal Simile Sūtra.

25.53

"The Vibhāṣā masters […] also have the principle of falling away": the extensive dispute having ended, [the treatise] concludes by returning to its own school. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, for the Mahāsāṃghika and other schools, stream-enterers have the principle of falling away, while arhats do not have the principle of falling away.

25.54

"Are there six lineages only for arhats […] or not?": this is the fourth section, explaining the lineages of trainees and ordinary beings. Question: Are there six lineages only for arhats? Or do the other trainees and ordinary worldlings also have six lineages? If they do, can all of them cultivate the training of faculties or not?

25.55

"The verse says: […] as in the stage of the aśaikṣa": this is the answer. Because in the prior stage of an ordinary being there are six kinds, trainees have six. Because in the prior stage of trainees there are six kinds, arhats have six. Because the path of vision (darśana-mārga) is rapid, there is no giving rise to preparation; in the other stages it can arise and cultivate the training of faculties. Only in the stages of faith-adherent (śraddhādhimukta) and ordinary worldling can one cultivate the training of faculties, just as in the stage of an aśaikṣa. Fascicle 7 of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Aids to liberation (mokṣa-bhāgīya) also have six kinds, from the parihāṇa-gotra up to the akopya-gotra. Transforming the parihāṇa-dharman lineage of aids to liberation, one gives rise to the cetanā-dharman lineage of aids to liberation, up to transforming prativedhanā to give rise to akopya-dharma; transforming a śrāvaka to give rise to a pratyekabuddha and a Buddha; transforming a pratyekabuddha to give rise to a śrāvaka and a Buddha. If one has given rise to the aids to liberation of the Buddha-lineage, it cannot be transformed, because it is extremely sharp. It is also said: aids to penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya) also have six natures.' Question: If it is said that the aids to liberation in the ordinary stage also have six lineages, why does fascicle 68 of the Mahāvibhāṣā only state that the aids to penetration have six lineages and not mention the prior stage? Thus that treatise says: 'Just as the stage of the path of vision has six lineages, the stage of associated practice (samprayukta-vihāra-bhūmi) also has these six lineages, namely the associated practice parihāṇa-dharma lineage up to the associated practice akopya-dharma lineage. That there are six lineages in this stage refers to heat, summit, patience, and supreme worldly dharmas, because these are proximate preparations for the noble path, because their objects and modes of practice regarding the Truths resemble the noble path, and because their supporting physical bases and concentrations are identical to the path of vision. The prior stages are not like this, so six lineages are not established.' The explanation is: the later text merely relies on one aspect, while the earlier text fully explains the trainee stage. The preparatory path for transforming faculties and so forth will be explained later.

25.56

"As the sūtra says: […] falling away from the pleasant dwelling in this present life": this is the fifth section, explaining the differences among the three fallings-away. The question is raised based on the sūtra. As the sūtra says: 'I say that due to this, the four fundamental dhyānas, which are higher mental factors (adhicitta), are attained, and one dwells in any one of the present-life pleasures as it manifests.' The others are named having falling away, while the attained akopya is said to have no falling away. How can an akopya-dharman fall away from the pleasant dwelling in this present life? 'Mental factor' means samādhi, or the mental factor of resolve (adhimokṣa). Thus fascicle 81 of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'As the sūtra says: there are four pleasant dwellings in this present life that are higher mental factors. Question: Why are they named higher mental factors? Answer: This mental factor is samādhi. No samādhi has great power and great functional activity capable of accomplishing great matters like the four fundamental dhyānas; hence these alone are named higher mental factors. Furthermore, in the four dhyānas, there are immeasurable kinds of excellent virtues of higher mental factors, such as the immeasurables.' This is explained at length as in that text.

25.57

"The verse says: […] the sharp has the intermediate, the dull has the three": the upper two lines present the three fallings-away, and the lower two lines clarify them in terms of persons.

25.58

"The treatise says: […] does not manifest": this explains the upper two lines, which can be understood according to the text. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Among the three, the first two have non-acquisition (aprāpti) as their entity; the third is solely that it does not manifest.'

25.59

"Among these three... because of already attained virtues" explains the lower two lines. Among the three kinds of falling away, the World-Honoured One has only the last kind, falling away from experiential enjoyment, because, possessing all virtues, there is no possibility of them all being manifested at once. When any one is manifested and the others are not manifested, this is called falling away from experiential enjoyment. The other, keen-facultied immovable arhats and pratyekabuddhas have, among the three kinds of falling away, the latter [falling away from] experiential enjoyment, and the intermediate falling away from what has not yet been attained, because they also have not yet attained the supreme virtues of the unique buddha-dharmas that surpass themselves. This explains that for the keen-facultied, with respect to the intermediate and the latter, their already attained virtues definitely never fall away, and hence they have no falling away from what has been attained. The other five lineages may possess all three, because they are dull-facultied. They can also fall away from already attained virtues, which explains "the dull have three."

25.60

"In terms of falling away from experiential enjoyment... there is no fault of contradiction" directly resolves the previous objection. Where the sūtras speak of falling away, among the three kinds of falling away it refers to falling away from experiential enjoyment. Saying that immovable dharmas all fall away from abiding in ease in the present life entails no fault of contradiction.

25.61

"The proponents of non-falling-away... should not raise this objection" sets forth the Sautrāntika tenet. The proponents of non-falling-away speak thus: in the person of an aśaikṣa, all uncontaminated liberations are called immovable, because there is no falling away or agitation. A hidden objection states: If in the person of an aśaikṣa all uncontaminated dharmas are free from falling away and agitation, all six lineages should be called immovable; why separately establish the sixth as the immovable dharma? In order to resolve this hidden objection, they speak thus: However, the separate establishment of the sixth, the immovable dharma, among the six lineages is stated with respect to abiding in ease in the present life through contaminated concentration, explaining that of the six lineages, the first five are subject to falling away, while the sixth does not fall away and is called immovable. It does not refer to the uncontaminated; as explained above, one should not raise this objection.

25.62

"Do arhats... commit [evil] at the time of falling away?" From here down is the sixth [section], explaining the characteristics at the time of falling away from the fruit. It repeats the previous question to raise [the topic].

25.63

"Not so" is the answer.

25.64

"For what reason?" is the inquiry.

25.65

"The verse states... because shame increases, they do not commit it" is the versified answer.

25.66

"The treatise states... a trustworthy place" explains the upper two lines. This explains that one who falls away from the fruit definitely does not die [before regaining it], as is clear from the text. Question: If one who falls away from the fruit does not die, why is it that when one falls away from the path of practice (pratipannaka) there can be death? Answer: As the Vibhāṣā says in fascicle 61: "Furthermore, the fundamental state of the fruit possesses five causal conditions: first, abandoning previously attained paths; second, attaining paths not previously attained; third, realizing the single-taste acquisition of the severance of defilements; fourth,頓 attaining the eight knowledges all at once; fifth, simultaneously cultivating the sixteen aspects. Therefore, at the time of falling away from the fruit, if it has not yet been regained, there is no principle of dying. In the path of practice this is not the case; hence when one falls away from that, although one has not yet regained it, there is the possibility of dying." It is explained at length as therein.

25.67

"Furthermore, abiding in the fruit... though stumbling, does not collapse" explains the lower two lines, as is clear from the text. Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra fascicle 70 states: "Furthermore, who falls away? Who does not fall away? One who enters the noble path through the contemplation of impurity may fall away; one who enters the noble path through mindfulness of breathing definitely does not fall away. Respecting calming (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā), and having non-attachment and non-delusion predominant, should be known respectively as having falling away and having no falling away."

First 67 of 158 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論記 — Classical Chinese