俱舍論疏 24

English (machine translation) 24

Language: English

24.2

Chapter 6: Exposition of the Noble Ones and the Wise, Part Three.

The treatise says, "Having explained abiding in the fruit... the path of progress toward and the fruit of the once-returner." The following one verse is the second part, clarifying the path of progress toward and the fruit of the once-returner.

24.4

"The treatise says... is designated a kulāṅkula." This explains the kulāṅkula ("clan-to-clan"). Advancing from abiding in stream-entry toward the subsequent fruit, up to the uninterrupted path that abandons the sixth category, is collectively called the fruit of and path of progress toward the once-returner. Within this there are two types: if one possesses the complete conditions, one is also called a kulāṅkula; if one does not possess the complete conditions, one is merely called [one on the path of] progress. The designation "kulāṅkula" is due to the presence of three conditions; about to explain the three conditions, it first marks them out and then explains them. This passage marks them out.

24.5

The treatise says, "First, due to the abandonment of defilements... three or two births." This explains them. It speaks of abandoning three or four categories, and does not mention one, two, or five, because the mind directed toward the fruit is powerful. If one abandons five, one definitely abandons six; and no one passes away while having abandoned only one or two categories. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 53, states: "When a yogin, having attained the first fruit, undertakes great exertion in order to abandon the fetters of the desire realm abandoned by cultivation, there is definitely no dying and being reborn without having abandoned a major category of fetters. Just as having abandoned five categories, there is definitely no dying and being reborn without having abandoned the sixth category of fetters. Because the three types such as the kulāṅkula undergo dying and being reborn, they are specifically mentioned here." The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 64, states: "A noble one born in the desire realm dies under three circumstances: first, complete detachment from passion; second, complete regression; third, dying with partial detachment from passion. An ordinary person dies under only two circumstances: first, complete detachment from passion; second, complete regression; there is none who dies with partial detachment from passion. A noble one born in the form realm dies under two circumstances: first, complete detachment from passion; second, partial detachment from passion; there is none who regresses, because in the form and formless realms there is no regression. An ordinary person dies under only one circumstance, namely complete detachment from passion, because they do not regress and do not die with partial detachment from passion. The same should be known for noble ones and ordinary persons born in the formless realm. Question: Why do noble ones die with partial detachment from passion while ordinary persons do not? Answer: Because noble ones possess undefiled samādhi, which sustains their mental continuity and makes it exceedingly firm. Ordinary persons possess only mundane samādhi, which sustains their mental continuity without it being exceedingly firm (with various further explanations)." Question: The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 32, states: "When a stream-enterer progresses toward the fruit of the once-returner, if they do not emerge from samādhi, at the preparatory path they attain non-analytical cessation regarding the six births in the desire realm; if they emerge from samādhi, they must reach the uninterrupted path of the sixth category before attaining non-analytical cessation regarding the six births in the desire realm." If abandoning five definitely entails abandoning six, why is it that when emerging from samādhi to abandon defilements, if one does not reach the uninterrupted path of the fifth category, one does not attain non-analytical cessation regarding the six births? Answer: No one who abandons five categories without regressing dies at this stage to become a kulāṅkula or the like, nor does anyone fail to advance to once-returner and die in this position; therefore, one who emerges from samādhi does not attain non-analytical cessation regarding the six births until reaching the fifth category, because regression is possible. Second, "due to the perfection of faculties" refers to the counteractive paths against the three or four categories. Third, "due to undergoing birth" refers to undergoing three or two more births in the desire realm.

24.6

The treatise says, "In the verse it only states... therefore it is not fully stated." This explains why the verse is abbreviated. Because it first spoke of abiding in the fruit of the stream-enterer and then advancing to abandon defilements of cultivation, this class definitely perfects the undefiled faculties; therefore the verse does not state it.

24.7

The treatise says, "However, it should further be stated... or exceeding this." This explains why it does not speak of perfecting the faculties but states the number of births. If one merely spoke of abandoning the defilements of the three or four categories as being a kulāṅkula without stating the undergoing of three or two births, then because there are those who, although having abandoned the defilements of the three or four categories, have indeterminate births when they advance—if they reach the once-returner or the ekavīcika, their births become fewer; if they attain parinirvāṇa in the present life, they have none at all; if they become an ūrdhvasrotas anāgāmin or regress, this then exceeds three or two births. Whether advancing or regressing, they are not a kulāṅkula. Therefore the word "birth" is placed here to exclude these classes; it is not definitive like the meaning of the counteractive faculties.

24.8

The treatise says, "For what reason in this case is there no... because they have not crossed the realm." This resolves an objection: For what reason does one who progresses toward the once-returner, upon abandoning five, definitely abandon six, whereas one who progresses toward the non-returner may abandon eight without abandoning nine? In this case one has not yet crossed the realm, whereas in that case one crosses the realm, which forms an extreme obstacle; therefore it is possible to abandon eight without abandoning nine.

24.9

The treatise says, "It should be known that in total there are... or two or three." This explains the celestial kulāṅkula: either undergoing three or two births in a single heavenly station, or undergoing three births across two or three heavenly stations, and so forth.

24.10

The commentary states: "As for the two types of humans who go from family to family … or two or three births," which explains humans who go from family to family (kulaṃkula). They take three or two births in a single continent, or take three births, etc., in two or three continents. Since the commentary mentions that those who go from family to family are twofold in total—namely, devas and humans—one knows from this that these two categories fully subsume all practitioners who go from family to family. The Nyāyānusāra states: "One should know that there are two kinds of practitioners who go from family to family in total. If a deva who goes from family to family takes three births, they take two in the human realm and three in the heavens. For one who takes two births, there is one among humans and two in the heavens." Now, examining the intention of the text: to explain one who goes from family to family with two births means that they take two births in heaven, etc.; it does not mean that one in heaven and one among humans combine to make two births. If combined to make two births, there would be no distinction from a once-returner (sakṛdāgāmin). This also proves that for one who goes from family to family with two births, having two in heaven and one among humans does not mean two each in heaven and among humans. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā, fascicle 36, states: "'Seven births in the heavens and seven births among humans' is said in reliance upon the complete stream-enterer (srotaāpanna). Therefore, humans and devas equally take seven births. However, there are stream-enterers whose human and deva births differ: namely, seven in heaven and six among humans; or seven among humans and six in heaven; or six in heaven and five among humans; or six among humans and five in heaven; or five in heaven and four among humans; or five among humans and four in heaven; or four in heaven and three among humans; or four among humans and three in heaven; or three in heaven and two among humans; or three among humans and two in heaven; or two in heaven and one among humans; or two among humans and one in heaven. Here, speaking provisionally of the maximum number of births, it is said that stream-enterers take seven each in heaven and among humans." According to this text of the treatise, stating only two in heaven and one among humans, etc., is explained in terms of inequality; that there are also two in heaven and two among humans, etc., does not conflict with the meaning. Furthermore, according to the Sarvāstivāda school, the severing of defilements is divided strictly into nine grades, with no mention of severing half a grade of defilement, and so forth. Furthermore, according to the doctrine of going from family to family, if one severs three grades, three births remain; if one severs four grades, two births remain: this means severing the upper three or four grades of defilements, not merely reducing one birth or half a birth. The Nyāyānusāra states: "If there are seven births, one does not necessarily complete all seven. Which category subsumes those who attain nirvāṇa in the interim while not yet at the stage of going from family to family? They are subsumed under the category of seven births, because the word 'utmost' among the seven indicates the maximum. Through this it has already been clarified that those who attain parinirvāṇa before their births are exhausted are also subsumed under that. Only those of the dullest faculties undergo all seven births; those of sharp faculties do not necessarily complete all seven births." Based on this, one knows that severing defilements across births is subsumed under the seven births. According to the treatise text above, when it says that for one who goes from family to family, severing three or four grades of defilements leaves three or two [births], this is also stated based on the maximum. It is not the case that there is no cessation after three or two births. If, having severed three grades and passed through one birth, one completely severs the remaining fetters and enters nirvāṇa, one is also subsumed under those who go from family to family with three births. The meaning is the same for those who go from family to family with two births. Carefully examining the scriptures and treatises which state that there are two types of practitioners who go from family to family—namely, devas who go from family to family and humans who go from family to family: whether their births are equal or unequal, all may be called deva or human practitioners who go from family to family. If their births are equal, their designation is based on where they attain the path and nirvāṇa; if their births are unequal, their designation is based on the realm where they experience more births. The statement that severing three or four grades leaves three or two births is made based on the primary cases. The statement about one in heaven and two among humans, etc., is made based on those who sever defilements before completing three or two births. Question: Why is it said that severing superior grades of defilements reduces many births, while severing intermediate and inferior grades reduces births progressively fewer? Furthermore, how does the reduction of births correlate with the defilements? Answer: Based on having all defilements and undergoing seven births, severing three leaves three, severing four leaves two, and severing six leaves one; the correlation can be known accordingly, yet it is not rigidly fixed. Since both severing seven or eight grades leave half a birth, one knows that the remaining grades are flexible and not rigidly fixed. Now, a stream-enterer possesses all nine grades of defilements and undergoes seven births, each birth being moisturized by all nine grades of defilements. One who possesses six grades of defilements and undergoes three births uses six grades to moisturize each single birth; without distinguishing grades, the moisturizing of birth is not differentiated. Thus, solely due to the greater or lesser amount of defilements, births increase or decrease. The confused explanations of the meaning of increasing and decreasing births by past and present commentators are tedious, so I will not relate them. However, whether the births taken are many or few, all the projecting karma was created during the stage of an ordinary person (pṛthagjana), not in the noble stage. The Nyāyānusāra states: "These three or two births are due to the creation and accumulation of karma projecting three or two births in the stage of an ordinary person. It is not that noble ones can freshly create new karma that projects future existence in the noble stage, because they have turned their backs on saṃsāra and face toward nirvāṇa. Hence the sūtra states: 'All noble ones only experience past karma; they do not create anew.'" Fascicle 53 of the Vibhāṣā says: "One master holds that they create it; another master holds that they do not." Between the two explanations, there is no decisive verdict. Following the Nyāyānusāra's citation of the scripture, non-creation is correct. Whether the five Śuddhāvāsa heavens create new karma or do not create new karma will be differentiated later. Now one should further recount the number of complete conditions. One who in the stage of an ordinary person has previously severed three or four [grades] lacks the antidote faculties when abiding in the fruit stage. For a gradual practitioner who has severed three or four grades but whose births are not yet fixed, the three or two births are lacking. For a person of seven births arriving at the fourth birth, although there are again three or two births, they lack the three or four grades of defilements. For one who goes from family to family with three births who arrives at the second birth, they are not one who goes from family to family with two births, because they have severed three grades of defilements.

24.11

The commentary states: "Namely, that stream-enterer … because of greed, hatred, and delusion," which explains the candidate for and the fruit of the once-returner. It can be understood from the text.

24.12

The commentary states: "Having already analyzed the once-returner … the distinction between candidate and fruit." The next single verse is the third, clarifying the candidate for and the fruit of the non-returner (anāgāmin).

24.13

"The commentary states … the meaning is as explained previously," which explains the single-interval practitioner (ekavīcika). One who possesses all three conditions is called a single-interval practitioner; if one, two, or three are lacking, they are not subsumed under the single-interval practitioner. That the verse does not mention the antidote faculties is as explained earlier regarding those who go from family to family.

24.14

The commentary states: "Why does one grade of defilement … because of the realm of maturation?" which explains that one grade of defilement obstructs the attainment of the non-returner, unlike the once-returner where one grade does not obstruct. It is just like the three times of extreme obstruction in the chapter on karma: namely, when about to enter the stage of acceptance (kṣānti), and when severing defilements at the attainment of the non-returner and arhat fruits, because one transcends their realm of outflow and maturation.

24.15

The commentary states: "'Interval' means obstruction … hence called a single-interval practitioner," which explains the name 'single-interval practitioner'. The Nyāyānusāra states: "The word 'interval' is another name for a gap. It means that in that stage, because there is one gap that accommodates one birth, one has not yet attained nirvāṇa." "Having one interval, one is named a single-interval practitioner": this explains the person named a single-interval practitioner.

24.16

The commentary states: "Namely, severing the defilements of cultivation … candidate for the fruit of the non-returner," which explains the candidate for the non-returner. There are two kinds of candidates for the non-returner: those who lack the complete conditions are simply called candidates for the non-returner, whereas those who possess all three conditions are also called single-interval practitioners.

24.17

The commentary states: "Having previously severed three or four … because of the immaculate faculties," which explains the lacking of conditions. If someone relies on the fundamental stage to enter the path of seeing, etc., and is definitely to attain parinirvāṇa in the present life, when reaching this stage, although they have accomplished the immaculate [faculties] and severed defilements, etc., because they lack births, they are neither one who goes from family to family nor a single-interval practitioner.

24.18

The commentary states: "If one severs the ninth … because of being born in the desire realm," which explains the fruit of the non-returner. It can be understood from the text.

24.19

The commentary states: "This is also called … because of the collective severance," which explains its alternative names. Although the leaping practitioner previously severs two and later severs three, while the gradual practitioner previously severs three and later severs two—the two kinds being different—when they reach the attainment of the fruit, both collectively exhaust and eliminate the five lower fetters into a single taste of attainment; therefore, both kinds of non-returners may be designated as having severed the five lower fetters.

24.20

The commentary states: "In various sūtras relying on the stage of the non-returner…" From here down clarifies the distinctions among non-returners. Therein are seven points: first, clarifying the seven kinds of non-returners; second, clarifying the nine kinds of non-returners; third, clarifying the destinations of the seven virtuous persons; fourth, clarifying not [passing into] the higher realms; fifth, clarifying miscellaneous cultivation; sixth, clarifying the Śuddhāvāsa; seventh, clarifying bodily realization. These two verses are the first, clarifying the seven non-returners.

24.21

"The commentary states … named upstream (ūrdhvasrotas)." There are seven kinds of non-returners; listing the five designations alongside each other, it briefly explains the five names, which can be understood from the text.

24.22

The commentary states: "Attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state means … immediately attains parinirvāṇa," which explains attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state (antarāparinirvāyin). The Nyāyānusāra states: "Attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state means that there is a class of individuals (pudgala) who have already obtained non-analytical cessation regarding the fetter of birth, but not so for the fetter of arising. Afflicted by tormenting conditions in the desire realm, they are able to exert themselves to cultivate the excellent preparation for severing the remaining fetters. Before the preparation is complete, encountering conditions for relinquishing life, they subsequently die. By the power of the fetter of arising, they take an intermediate existence (antarābhava) in the form realm; being disgusted with much suffering, they ride their previous path of arising to proceed to sever the remaining fetters, become an arhat, and attain parinirvāṇa. This extends to: only when passing away from the desire realm and taking intermediate existence in the form realm to immediately attain parinirvāṇa do they receive the name 'attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state', not when passing away from the form realm. For what reason is there no one among trainees (śaikṣa) who have not yet separated from desire and greed who attains parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state? The support-body of the intermediate existence in the desire realm is weak and inferior, and lacks the capability for many tasks. When abiding in the stage of fundamental existence, the dharmas of the desire realm are still difficult to transcend; how much less could they transcend the desire realm in the intermediate existence to attain the fruit of arhatship! 'Many tasks' refers to transcending the three realms, permanently severing two kinds of defilements, and attaining the realization of two or three fruits of the recluse. Abiding in the stage of intermediate existence, one lacks such capability. Furthermore, for attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate existence of this stage, one only arouses the noble path belonging to this stage. One who attains parinirvāṇa in the stage of intermediate existence of the first dhyāna stage only brings into presence the noble path of the fundamental dhyāna of their own stage, not that of the unarrived (anāgamya) or intermediate (dhyānāntara) [dhyāna], because those are difficult to bring into presence. In the stage of intermediate existence, the support-body is weak and inferior; only that which is easy to arouse can be brought into presence. Furthermore, only those who pass away from the desire realm to go and be born in the form realm have parinirvāṇa in the intermediate existence, not those who pass away from the form realm to be born in the form realm, because there are no disasters in the form realm. If in the stage of fundamental existence there are remaining obstructive conditions such that they cannot attain nirvāṇa, it is likewise so in the intermediate existence."

24.23

The commentary states: "Attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth means … refers to [nirvāṇa] with residue," which explains attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth (upapadya-parinirvāyin). Attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state combines with [nirvāṇa] without residue; attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth has only [nirvāṇa] with residue. The Nyāyānusāra states regarding attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth: "It refers to a class of individuals who, because of previously creating and accumulating karma conducive to arising and rebirth, take birth in the form realm after passing away from the desire realm. Because they are endowed with the path of diligent cultivation and swift progress, not long after being born they become arhats, and only after exhausting their lifespan do they attain parinirvāṇa. Speaking in terms of [nirvāṇa] with residue, it is called attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth; it is not that immediately upon being born they attain [nirvāṇa] without residue, because they lack mastery over relinquishing life." Following this treatise text, such an explanation is given for attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth, whereas this explanation is not given for attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state; hence one knows that those who attain parinirvāṇa in the intermediate existence, having attained [nirvāṇa] with residue, immediately attain [nirvāṇa] without residue.

24.24

The commentary states: "Other masters say … because of having no mastery," which refutes the explanations of divergent masters.

24.25

The commentary states: "Attaining parinirvāṇa with exertion means … because of having no path of swift progress," which explains attaining parinirvāṇa with exertion (sābhisaṃskāra-parinirvāyin). Because this [practitioner] possesses only the path of diligent cultivation, it is called 'with exertion'. Furthermore, because of lacking the path of swift progress, it is placed after attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth.

24.26

The commentary states: "Attaining parinirvāṇa without exertion means … because of having the path of swift progress," which explains attaining parinirvāṇa without exertion (anabhisaṃskāra-parinirvāyin). Although lacking swift progress is the same as with exertion, because of lacking diligent cultivation, it is placed after with exertion. The Nyāyānusāra states: "If a class previously in the desire realm, relying on the power of samādhi with unremitting preparation, severed the five lower fetters and became non-returners, and later, having been born in the form realm for a long time, are still able to advance and cultivate the previous kind of path to become arhats, they are called attaining parinirvāṇa with exertion. Those who attain parinirvāṇa without exertion are the opposite of this."

24.27

The commentary states: "Some say these two … because of the excessive error," which refutes a divergent explanation. Since all seven kinds of non-returners take those conditioned and unconditioned dharmas as objects to attain nirvāṇa, all should be called 'with exertion' or 'without exertion'. Therefore it is said that there is an excessive error.

24.28

The commentary states: "However, in the sūtra … it is in accord with reasoning," which is the critical acceptance of the Sautrāntika school's position.

24.29

On the treatise passage, "Because there is a path of swift progress... one directly attains parinirvāṇa": This presents the Sautrāntika position. One without effort has a path of swift progress; with sharp faculties, they should come first. One with effort lacks a path of swift progress; with dull faculties, they should come later. What is attained without effort occurs without exertion; being sharp, they should come first. What is attained with effort occurs with much exertion; being dull, they should come later. Attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth involves obtaining the swiftest and highest-grade path, coming before one without effort; thus, using parinirvāṇa upon rebirth proves that parinirvāṇa with effort belongs later. The Nyāyānusāra states: "However, some sūtras state that the one without effort comes first, while other sūtras first state the one with effort. Since the time is not different, there is no contradiction regardless of which is stated. The one with effort is worthy of honor, which is why I state it first." According to this treatise text, both the one with effort and the one without effort come after the one who attains parinirvāṇa upon rebirth; that is, relative to one another, their sequence is indefinite.

24.30

On the treatise passage, "As for the one who goes upstream... only then attains parinirvāṇa": This explains the one who goes upstream (ūrdhvasrotas). Herein there are two parts: first, a general explanation; second, a specific explanation. This text is the general explanation. "Goes upstream" means "proceeding upward." As for the former who attains parinirvāṇa upon rebirth, although they are reborn in an upper realm, they attain parinirvāṇa right in that place of rebirth and do not take further rebirth higher up; they lack the meaning of proceeding upward, which is why those who attain parinirvāṇa upon rebirth and so forth are not called "upstream." If, having been reborn in the form realm, one must successively take birth higher up, all such are called "upstream," because there is upward progression.

24.31

On the treatise passage, "This very upstream practitioner... because these are the ultimate limits": This divides them into two. Due to differences in causes and results, the upstream practitioner is divided into two, meaning there is a distinction between delighting in samādhi and delighting in wisdom. By difference of cause: the upstream practitioner who delights in wisdom possesses miscellaneous cultivation of dhyāna, whereas the upstream practitioner who delights in samādhi does not possess miscellaneous cultivation of dhyāna. By difference of result: the upstream practitioner who delights in wisdom is reborn in Akaniṣṭha and is not reborn in the formless realm; the upstream practitioner who delights in samādhi is reborn in the heaven of Bhavāgra and is not reborn in the Śuddhāvāsa heavens. Since it states that these two heavens are the ultimate limits, it also allows for rebirth in the lower Śuddhāvāsa heavens and the lower formless heavens. Were it not so, there would be no arhats in the lower four Śuddhāvāsa heavens or the lower three formless heavens; these are intermediate traversers.

24.32

On the treatise passage, "That is to say, if regarding the dhyānas... only then attains parinirvāṇa": This is the first part, explaining the upstream practitioner who delights in wisdom.

24.33

On the treatise passage, "Furthermore, of this [practitioner], there are... due to differences in passing away everywhere": This divides those who delight in wisdom into three: namely, complete traversers, intermediate traversers, and those who pass away in every place.

24.34

On the treatise passage, "The complete traverser refers to... this is the meaning of complete traverser": This explains the first type. It is identical with the Nyāyānusāra.

24.35

On the treatise passage, "The intermediate traverser refers to... having a single teacher": This explains the second type. It is identical with the Nyāyānusāra.

24.36

On the treatise passage, "The one who passes away everywhere refers to... therefore called passing away everywhere": This explains the third type. It is identical with the Nyāyānusāra. Fascicle 174 of the Vibhāṣā states: "Question: As it is said that one who falls back and abides in the first dhyāna is reborn in the heaven of Brahmā-pāriṣadya, becoming an upstream practitioner of complete traversing, intermediate traversing, or passing away in all places—if that person falls back and abides in the second dhyāna to be born in the heaven of Parīttābha, or falls back and abides in the third dhyāna to be born in the heaven of Parīttaśubha, or falls back and abides in the fourth dhyāna to be born in the heaven of Anabhraka, and so forth, can they also become an upstream practitioner of complete traversing, intermediate traversing, or passing away in all places, or not? Some say: They cannot. Because by taking rebirth in the world of Brahmā, there is no deficiency in the places where a higher non-returner ought to be reborn; based on that, one establishes complete traversing, intermediate traversing, and passing away in all places. If one falls back and is reborn in a higher level, the places would then be deficient, so one does not establish complete traversing and so forth based on that. Some say: They may also be called an intermediate traverser, because they traverse an intermediate place in a minor degree. Some say: They can also fully possess the three types. Their explanation is that wherever one is reborn after passing away from the desire realm, in the places where one ought to be reborn above that, one may also designate complete traversing, intermediate traversing, and passing away in all places. Question: If a non-returner passes away from the desire realm and is reborn in the formless realm, can they also become a complete traverser and so forth, or not? Some say: They cannot. Some say: They may also be called an intermediate traverser. Some say: They also fully possess the three types." The reasons here are all as explained before. Although there is no evaluative conclusion, the latter two explanations are correct, because they encompass all persons. Furthermore, those who do not ascend all the way to Akaniṣṭha and so forth are also subsumed under these three. Those who do not begin from below in the first dhyāna are also subsumed under this. Thus, speaking of them here again as "traversers" is logically faultless. If one includes from their place of rebirth on downward, it is solely called intermediate traversing. If one speaks only of from their place of rebirth on upward, there is also the meaning of complete traversing. Since there are those who pass away everywhere and intermediate traversers, we therefore know that having previously obtained miscellaneous cultivation in the desire realm, when later reborn in the form realm, undergoing six or seven births is also possible; because of former habituation, one later gives rise to miscellaneous cultivation. The Nyāyānusāra states: "'Passing away everywhere' means: because of having much attachment to the flavors [of trance] in the form realm, one is reborn in every place. Because throughout the sixteen places of the four dhyāna stages, in each and every one there is a lower-grade attachment to flavor serving as the condition that induces rebirth, passing away from one life to the next in each place from the heaven of Brahmā-pāriṣadya until reaching Akaniṣṭha, only then does one attain parinirvāṇa; hence it is called 'passing away everywhere.'" Following this reasoning, the dwelling place of Mahābrahmā in the first dhyāna is not a separate place, but is subsumed under the second, the heaven of Brahmapurohita. If it were otherwise, because the dwelling of Mahābrahmā is a place of perverse views and has a single teacher, no noble person would ever be reborn in it, and there would be no difference between passing away everywhere and intermediate traversing.

24.37

On the treatise passage, "No non-returner... how much less could there be rebirth in what is below": This explains the meaning of "non-returner" (anāgāmin). It is identical with the Vibhāṣā.

24.38

On the treatise passage, "It should be known that this refers to... those who attain parinirvāṇa": This concludes the one who delights in wisdom.

24.39

On the treatise passage, "The rest, in the dhyānas... only then attains parinirvāṇa": This explains the one who delights in samādhi.

24.40

On the treatise passage, "Among the two upstream practitioners... because there is a distinction": This explains the two designations.

24.41

On the treatise passage, "The two upstream practitioners... taking birth at most seven times": This explains that before reaching Akaniṣṭha Heaven and Bhavāgra Heaven, both upstream practitioners may attain parinirvāṇa in the intermediate stages. Just as those who attain parinirvāṇa in intermediate places upon being reborn in the second, third, or fourth heavens are subsumed under intermediate traversers, even if they do not skip over stages, they are still called intermediate traversers because they traverse births.

24.42

On the treatise passage, "These five are called those who fare in the form realm": This is the general conclusion for those who fare in the form realm.

24.43

On the treatise passage, "Those who fare in the formless realm... because there is a distinction": This explains those who delight in samādhi. There are four distinctions: namely, parinirvāṇa upon rebirth, with effort, without effort, and upstream. According to this treatise text, among those who fare in the form realm there are two kinds: first, those who obtain miscellaneous cultivation and are reborn in the five Śuddhāvāsa heavens; second, those who do not obtain miscellaneous cultivation, and having been reborn in the form realm, are later reborn in the formless realm. Those who fare in the formless realm, having separated from passion for form while in the desire realm, are reborn in the formless realm; that is to say, those who delight in samādhi are of two kinds: first, those who, having been reborn in the form realm, are reborn in the formless realm; second, those who, without being reborn in the form realm, are reborn in the formless realm.

24.44

On the treatise passage, "These, together with the former five... together with the former six, make seven": This concludes the count of seven. That is: 1. attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state, 2. attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth, 3. attaining parinirvāṇa with effort, 4. attaining parinirvāṇa without effort, 5. the upstream practitioner who fares in the form realm, 6. the upstream practitioner who fares in the formless realm, and 7. attaining parinirvāṇa in the present life. If one adds taking further birth, there are eight kinds. If one divides attaining parinirvāṇa in the present life into two, there are nine kinds. If one is not reborn in the form realm, even if there is further birth, it is also called attaining parinirvāṇa in the present life; alternatively, it may be divided into two. The Nyāyānusāra also states: "Or one should establish nine kinds of non-returners in total. That is, dividing those who attain nirvāṇa in the present life into two kinds: first, those who clearly master the noble aim at an earlier stage; second, those who are only able to clearly master it at the time of death, making eight kinds in total. Furthermore, adding taking further birth, they become nine kinds. 'Taking further birth' means having already obtained the fruit of stream-enterer or once-returner in a previous life, only obtaining non-returner within the present life. The earlier phrase 'attaining parinirvāṇa in the present life' designates only one who newly enters the noble state in the present life and proceeds to nirvāṇa."

24.45

On the treatise passage, "Among the five non-returners who fare in the form realm": The following single stanza is the second part, clarifying the nine non-returners.

24.46

On the treatise passage, "The treatise says... because there is a distinction": This divides the anāgāmin into three distinctions: namely, attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state, attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth, and upstream make three.

24.47

On the treatise passage, "How are there three kinds... because it is revealed by contrast": This divides attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state into three distinctions.

24.48

On the treatise passage, "Attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth... is called attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth": This divides attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth into three distinctions.

24.49

On the treatise passage, "Among the upstream practitioners... because there is a distinction": This divides the upstream practitioner into three distinctions.

24.50

On the treatise passage, "Yet all these three kinds... without the fault of confusion": Here, among those who attain parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state: swift means as soon as intermediate existence arises; non-swift is the next; after a long time is the last. Among those who attain parinirvāṇa upon rebirth: attaining parinirvāṇa immediately upon birth is swift; with effort is the next; without effort is the last. Among the three upstream practitioners: complete traverser is swift; intermediate traverser is the next; passing away everywhere is slow.

24.51

On the treatise passage, "Such three kinds... differing in duration": This clarifies the causes for dividing into three and nine.

24.52

On the treatise passage, "First, forming three in general... due to the distinction in faculties": This divides them into three in general due to three causes. Having only karma that initiates [rebirth] is attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state; having karma that initiates and produces [rebirth] is attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth; having karma that initiates, produces, and subsequently matures [rebirth] is the upstream practitioner. Furthermore, lower afflictions belong to attaining parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state; middling afflictions belong to attaining parinirvāṇa upon rebirth; upper afflictions belong to the upstream practitioner. Furthermore, superior faculties belong to the intermediate state; middling faculties belong to rebirth; inferior faculties belong to the upstream practitioner.

24.53

On the treatise passage, "Each one of these three... forming the distinction of three into nine": This clarifies the three-into-nine tripartite divisions. Dividing those who attain parinirvāṇa in the intermediate state into three is due to distinctions in faculties and afflictions. Their karma is the same, having an initiated existence without a produced existence. The three kinds of parinirvāṇa upon rebirth also have three forms due to faculties and afflictions, not due to karma, because they identically possess karma that initiates and produces. The latter three completely depend on afflictions, karma, and faculties. Faculties and afflictions are understood. Karma being threefold: the complete traverser has only karma to be experienced in subsequent lives for one birth; the intermediate traverser has karma to be experienced in subsequent lives to a moderately greater extent; the one who passes away in all places has karma to be experienced in subsequent lives to the greatest extent. Therefore, it is said that they are also divided into three kinds due to distinctions in karma to be experienced in subsequent lives. The concluding summary below is understood.

24.54

On the treatise passage, "If so, why in the various sūtras": The following single stanza is the third part, clarifying the destinations of the seven virtuous persons.

24.55

On the treatise passage, "The treatise says... tentatively established as one": This enumerates the count of seven. The two categories of rebirth and intermediate parinirvāṇa each have three, making six; adding the upstream practitioner completes the former to make seven.

24.56

On the treatise passage, "Why solely based on these... noble trainees": This is a question. Why are the destinations of the seven virtuous persons established solely based on non-returners, and not based on the earlier fruits?

24.57

On the treatise passage, "'Destination' has the meaning of progressing... the others are not so": This is the first answer. "Destination" (gati) has the meaning of progressing; because persons who are non-returners progress solely in good, they are called destinations of virtuous persons. Although those in the prior two stages of path and fruit perform good karma, it is mixed with the unwholesome, not differing from ordinary persons; hence they do not receive the designation of virtuous destinations.

24.58

The passage of the treatise starting with "Furthermore, only these seven are... established as destinations of the virtuous (satpuruṣa-gati)" is the second explanation. The former [explanation] named them 'virtuous destinations' in terms of practicing good; this [explanation] names them 'virtuous destinations' because they go upward (urdhvagati). Only the non-returner proceeds solely upward and does not return below again. The prior candidates and fruit-attainers are all born returning back and forth in the desire realm. Although a 'one-interval' (ekavīcika) person has only one birth left, it may be upward or downward and not solely an upward birth; therefore, they are not called a destination of the virtuous. Between these two explanations, the latter is regarded as superior. If practicing only good were the reason to name them virtuous destinations, persons beyond training (aśaikṣa) also practice only good—why would they not be included? The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 175, says: "Question: Just as there are three kinds each for those who attain nirvāṇa upon being born and those who do not, so too for those who go upstream (ūrdhvasrotas)—namely, the complete transcend-all (sarvatrotkruṣṭa), the partial transcend-all (ardhotkruṣṭa), and those who pass away in all stations (sarvasthānacyuta). Why are they collectively stated as one? Answer: 'Upon being born' and 'without being born' each refer to a continuum of a single existence, wherein the distinctions of states are difficult to know; in order to make them known, three kinds are stated for each. For the three kinds of those who go upstream, the number of births is self-evident and their distinctions are easy to know; therefore, they are collectively stated as one kind simply in accordance with the preeminent meaning of going upward. Furthermore, for 'upon being born' and 'without being born', the period of one lifetime is brief, and with respect to distinctive meanings there are only so many that are easily established; thus they are divided into three. For those who go upstream, the time is long, the distinctions are manifold, and their boundaries are difficult to discern; thus they are collectively established as one. Furthermore, 'upon being born' and 'without being born' also have equal meanings, and those who go upstream also have distinct meanings; desiring to illuminate them mutually through the two texts, it is stated thus. Furthermore, for 'upon being born' and 'without being born', the characteristics of the destination of the virtuous are manifest and easily understood because they swiftly proceed to parinirvāṇa; each is divided into three. As for those who go upstream, the characteristics of the destination of the virtuous are subtle, hidden, and difficult to know because they still undergo many births and deaths; hence they are only collectively stated as one ('upon being born' refers to attaining nirvāṇa upon being born, etc., and 'without being born' refers to attaining nirvāṇa in the intermediate state)."

24.59

The passage of the treatise starting with "If so, why is it that... and so on at length" cites a sūtra to raise an objection. According to the sūtra, it also takes in all trainees (śaikṣa); why does it take only the third fruit?

24.60

The passage of the treatise starting with "All other trainees... go to higher realms" is the answer. All other trainees, with respect to the five kinds of evils such as killing, have all obtained the restraint (saṃvara) of definitively not committing them, because the unwholesome defilements have been mostly severed. According to such an alternative exposition (paryāya), they also obtain [the name] 'destinations of the virtuous'. Now, in the seven virtuous destinations of this sūtra, however, because they practice only good and do not practice evil, they go only to higher realms; under this alternative exposition only seven kinds are established, not the other trainees. The Vibhāṣā states: "Question: A non-returner proceeding to the formless realm has five matters superior to a non-returner proceeding to the form realm, namely: superiority of realm, superiority of ground, superiority of severing defilements, superiority of diminishing the skandhas, and superiority of meditative attainment (samāpatti). Why are they not established as destinations of the virtuous? Some say: If it is coarse, manifest, and easily understood, it is established as a destination of the virtuous; that one is not manifest, and therefore is not spoken of." It also says: "Question: Why is an arhat not a destination of the virtuous? Furthermore, one who proceeds to a higher birth is established as a destination of the virtuous; an arhat has no birth, and therefore is not established. Furthermore, one who proceeds to a higher fruit is established as a destination of the virtuous; an arhat is already the highest fruit, and there is no further higher fruit to proceed to, and therefore is not established."

24.61

The passage of the treatise "All who, residing in the noble state, have already undergone birth" is the following single stanza, the fourth [section], clarifying not being born in higher realms.

24.62

"The treatise says... attains parinirvāṇa" is the explanation. A noble person who has undergone birth in the desire realm definitely does not go to be born in the stations of higher realms. Having previously comprehended suffering and undergone birth in the desire realm, where life is brief and yet difficult to endure, and because life in the higher realms is long, they feel deep revulsion and do not go. Therefore, having obtained [the fruit of] the non-returner (anāgāmin), through revulsion they are not born above, and must attain parinirvāṇa in the present body.

24.63

The passage of the treatise starting with "If in the form realm... up to the Peak of Existence (bhavāgra)" clarifies that for a noble person who has undergone birth in the form realm, because their mind of revulsion is weaker, they may possibly be born above.

24.64

The passage of the treatise starting with "However, Śakra, Lord of the Gods... the Buddha also did not stop him" explains a doubt and objection. Because Śakra, Lord of the Gods, was afflicted with extreme distress and suffering due to the five signs of death, he came and took refuge in the World-Honoured One. As soon as the signs of death were eliminated, he spoke these words to induce joy. Furthermore, seeing that stopping him would have little benefit, the Buddha did not stop him.

24.65

The passage of the treatise starting with "Those very ones who have already undergone... refinement of faculties and retrogression" explains that for those who have undergone birth in the desire [realm] and those who have undergone birth above, none have refinement of faculties (indriyasaṃskāra) or retrogression (parihāṇi).

24.66

The passage of the treatise starting with "For what reason is it not accepted that... there are refinement of faculties and retrogression?" is the question.

24.67

The passage of the treatise "Because it is definitively absent" is the answer.

24.68

The passage of the treatise "For what reason is it definitively absent?" is a repeated question.

24.69

The passage of the treatise starting with "Having undergone birth, the accustomed faculties... the basis relying upon" answers with two meanings. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Because they have undergone birth, the noble path has accumulated in their own continuum extremely firmly, and because they have attained a superior basis [of physical body], through this there is no principle for their refinement of faculties or retrogression."

24.70

The passage of the treatise starting with "For what reason does a trainee... attain parinirvāṇa?" is the question.

24.71

The passage of the treatise starting with "Because their noble path... does not have such capacity" is the extensive answer. It can be understood according to the text.

24.72

The passage of the treatise "Previously it was stated that those going upstream compound the cultivation of dhyāna" is the following single stanza, the fifth [section], clarifying compounding the cultivation of dhyāna.

24.73

"The treatise says... because it is most supreme" clarifies the intended order of compounding cultivation. One must first cultivate the fourth and only then cultivate the lower dhyānas, because in the fourth dhyāna, calming (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā) are equal, and it is called 'easy practice' (sukhadharmā pratipad). Because the easy practice of the fourth dhyāna is superior, one cultivates that absorption (samādhi) first.

First 73 of 217 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論疏 — Classical Chinese