俱舍論疏 25

English (machine translation) 25

Language: English

25.2

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

From the passage of the treatise “As was previously explained ... up to ‘is there also, what is it?’”: the major text below is the fifth [section], explaining the six spiritual lineages (gotra). First, it explains the six kinds of arhats; second, the six kinds of trainees and ordinary persons; third, the distinctions among the three kinds of falling back; fourth, the times of falling back from the fruit among the six, etc.; fifth, the differences in refining the faculties; sixth, the nine kinds of non-trainees. Within the first heading: first, it explains the six spiritual lineages; second, the sequence of the six; third, falling back from lineage and fruit. This verse of one and a half lines explains the six spiritual lineages.

25.4

From “The treatise says ... up to ‘the sixth, the steadfast’”: this lists the names of the six spiritual lineages.

25.5

On the passage of the treatise from “Among these six ... up to ‘and because of mental liberation’”: this explains that one who was previously in the trainee stage [characterized by] liberation through faith is now, upon reaching non-learning, called “temporarily beloved mental liberation.” Because one constantly cherishes and protects the dharma one has attained, it is called “temporarily beloved”; and because the mind is liberated from the bondage of defilements, it is called “mental liberation.” A trainee lacks mental liberation, while an arhat of sharp faculties does not [need to] cherish [it] temporarily; possessing both [traits], this name is established for this [lineage].

25.6

On the passage of the treatise from “It is also called ... up to ‘only then entering meditative absorption’”: this explains the alternative name. Because one must wait for a time to attain liberation, it is called “temporary liberation.” Like a “ghee pot,” omitting the initial word “containing,” it is simply called a “ghee pot.” From “Because it waits for a time” onwards explains waiting for a time. The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 101, says: “Although there are many times, briefly there are six: 1. the time of obtaining good robes; 2. the time of obtaining good food; 3. the time of obtaining good bedding; 4. the time of obtaining a good dwelling; 5. the time of obtaining a good exposition of Dharma; 6. the time of obtaining a good companion (pudgala). And so on at length: because one attains mental liberation awaiting these six kinds of times, it is called ‘temporary liberation.’” It also says: “What is ‘temporarily beloved mental liberation’? Answer: It is the mind associated with the knowledge of exhaustion or non-trainee right view of an arhat of temporary liberation, which has resolved, is resolving, or will resolve. What is ‘unshakeable mental liberation’? Answer: It is the mind associated with the knowledge of exhaustion, knowledge of non-arising, or non-trainee right view of an arhat of unshakeable dharma, which has resolved, is resolving, or will resolve. Here, ‘the mind associated with knowledge of exhaustion, knowledge of non-arising, or non-trainee right view’ excludes trainees and defiled minds. ‘Has resolved’ refers to the present; ‘has [previously] resolved’ refers to the past; ‘will resolve’ refers to the future. This distinguishes it from unconditioned liberation, showing that the essential nature of both liberations is solely resolution associated with an uncontaminated mind.” It also says: “Each of these two liberations has two kinds: first, it is called mental liberation, because of detaching from greed; second, it is called liberation by wisdom, because of detaching from ignorance. Furthermore, another explanation says: because one attains liberation relying on a narrow path, it is called ‘temporary liberation.’ As for the narrow path: if exceedingly fast, in the first life one plants wholesome roots, in the second life one brings them to maturation, and in the third life one attains liberation. Others are indeterminate. Attaining liberation relying on an extensive path is called ‘non-temporary liberation.’ As for the extensive path: in the most protracted Śrāvaka vehicle, it takes sixty kalpas to attain liberation, like Śāriputra; the Pratyekabuddha vehicle takes one hundred kalpas to attain liberation, like the rhinoceros-horn; the Buddha vehicle takes three incalculable kalpas to attain liberation.”

25.7

On the passage of the treatise from “The nature of the unshakeable dharma ... up to ‘and because of mental liberation’”: this explains the former attainment of view. At the stage of non-learning it is called “unshakeable mental liberation.” In the verse, saying “the last” is because the nature of the unshakeable dharma is the very last among the six lineages. Simply calling it “the last” indicates that it is the unshakeable. Precisely this unshakeable is called “unshakeable” because it lacks falling back and shaking, and it is called “mental liberation” because greed and the rest are exhausted.

25.8

On the passage of the treatise from “It is also called ... up to ‘because of the time of harmony’”: this explains that it is also named “non-temporary liberation.” Because samādhi and the like are brought into presence without waiting for the time of superior conditions, it is called “non-temporary.” Because defilements are exhausted, it is called “mental liberation.”

25.9

On the passage of the treatise from “Alternatively, relying on temporary ... up to ‘because there is no time of falling back’”: this relates an alternative explanation. Temporary liberation has a time of falling back; because it has such a time, it is called “temporary liberation.” Ultimate liberation has no time of falling back; because it lacks such a time, it is called “non-temporary liberation.”

25.10

On the passage of the treatise: “This is born from the lineage of attainment of view in the trainee stage”: this explains the original designation. As for the earlier temporary liberation, it first stated what it is born from and then stated the alternative name; whereas for non-temporary liberation, it first stated the alternative name and then stated what it is born from, for the convenience of poetic meter.

25.11

On the passage of the treatise: “The six kinds of arhats thus explained”: the half-verse below is the second [section], explaining the sequence of the six kinds.

25.12

From “The treatise says ... up to ‘should be stated accordingly’”: this clarifies that among the six lineages, if someone at the stage of non-learning is of the liable to fall back dharma, they were definitely of the liable to fall back lineage previously at the stage of learning. If one is of the reflective dharma lineage at the stage of non-learning, it is not fixed: either they were of the liable to fall back dharma at the stage of learning and upon reaching the stage of non-learning refined their faculties up to reflection, or they were born from the reflective lineage of a trainee, and so on up to the unshakeable; or they were originally of the unshakeable lineage at the stage of learning, or of the liable to fall back lineage, or reflective, etc., and upon reaching the stage of non-learning refined their faculties up to the unshakeable.

25.13

On the passage of the treatise from “One of the liable to fall back dharma ... up to ‘not of the reflective dharma, etc.’”: this explains the liable to fall back dharma. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “It refers to one who, having obtained such faculties and abiding in these faculties, falls back from what has been attained when meeting conditions for falling back; if there are no conditions for falling back, they enter parinirvāṇa; or some, through energetic exertion, advance to attain a superior lineage.”

25.14

On the passage of the treatise from “One of the reflective dharma ... up to ‘constantly contemplates suicide’”: this explains the reflective dharma. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “They constantly think thus: ‘May I not encounter illness and the like, and thereby forget and lose right mindfulness, causing slackness in application, and due to this slackness bring about my falling back.’ Due to such deliberation, the thought of suicide arises; or because only through hardship did they attain this superior stage, viewing all wealth and possessions ...” and so on at length.

25.15

On the passage of the treatise from “One of the protective dharma ... up to ‘delights in self-protection’”: this explains the protective dharma. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “It refers to a class of persons who constantly maintain mindfulness in the presence of temporarily beloved liberation, intently protecting it, thinking thus: ‘I am not yet able to cultivate the refining of faculties to reach the abiding dharma; I can only vigilantly and energetically protect [myself] within temporarily beloved mental liberation.’ Such a type is called the protective dharma.”

25.16

On the passage of the treatise from “One of the abiding dharma ... up to ‘nor does one advance’”: this explains the abiding dharma. The meaning of the *Nyāyānusāra* is the same.

25.17

On the passage of the treatise from “One capable of penetration ... up to ‘quickly penetrates the unshakeable’”: this explains capable of penetration. The *Nyāyānusāra* is also the same.

25.18

On the passage of the treatise: “One of the unshakeable dharma definitely has no falling back”: this explains the unshakeable. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “It refers to a class whose faculties are superior, who are autonomous in their practice, who have attained skillful wisdom in abandoning defilements and secondary defilements, and who cannot be shaken by any conditions conducive to falling back,” and so on at length.

25.19

On the passage of the treatise from “These six lineages ... up to ‘possess both applications’”: this explains the reason for the differences among the six lineages. ‘Constant’ refers to steady practice; ‘reverent’ refers to vigorous exertion. The liable to fall back lineage lacks both and has dull faculties; the reflective lineage has faculties slightly sharper in both; the third is constant only; the fourth is reverent only; the fifth, though possessing both, has dull faculties; the sixth possesses both and has sharp faculties.

25.20

On the Śāstra's statement: "The lineage of the liable to fall away ... are all present throughout the three realms": This explains that the designations of the five lineages are based on possibility, and do not mean that falling away and so forth definitely occur in accordance with their names. In all three realms, all six lineages are present, yet in the higher realms there is neither falling away nor the training of faculties.

25.21

On the Śāstra's statement: "If one maintains that the liable to fall away ... therefore there are only two": This explains that if those liable to fall away definitely fell away, then only the desire realm would possess all six lineages and they could not extend to the higher realms, because [in the higher realms] there is no falling away and so forth.

25.22

On the Śāstra's statement: "Among these six kinds of arhats": From this point onward, in half a line of verse, it thirdly explains falling away from lineages and from fruits.

25.23

On the statement: "The Śāstra says ... all admit the possibility of falling away": This explains that of the six lineages, the unshakable lineage definitely does not fall away. For the first five lineages, there is the possibility of falling away; saying there is the possibility of falling away shows that it is not definite.

25.24

On the Śāstra's statement: "Among them, the latter four ... because it occupies the lowest position": This explains that among the five, the one liable to fall away does not admit of falling away from its lineage, because it is the lowest. The other four all admit of falling away from their lineages, because there is an inferior lineage to which they can fall away.

25.25

On the Śāstra's statement: "All five admit the possibility of falling away from the fruit": This explains it. The first five lineages all admit the possibility of falling away from the fruit; it is not definite.

25.26

On the Śāstra's statement: "Although both involve falling away ... because of the firmness of what has been accomplished": Falling away from lineage and falling away from fruit do not apply to what was originally attained. That is, if one was originally of the lineage liable to fall away in the stage of a trainee (śaikṣa), and upon reaching the stage of an adept (aśaikṣa) advanced through training faculties to become of the lineage of reflection and so on, these lineages admit both of falling away from lineage and falling away from the fruit. If one was originally of the lineage of reflection in the stage of a trainee, and upon reaching the stage of an adept advanced from reflection to preservation and so forth, there is falling away from lineage. But upon reaching the lineage of reflection, there is no falling away from the fruit, nor falling away from the lineage of reflection, because what has been accomplished through both the path of the trainee and the path of the adept is firm. Preservation and so forth should be understood accordingly. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 182, says: "Venerable Śamathadatta said: 'When one falls away from the fruit of an arhat, one only obtains the previously relinquished trainee fruit in the future, not in the past. Why is that? Because that [past fruit] can never become present. The same applies when dying in a higher stage and being reborn below.'" It also says: "The Mahāsāṃghikas say: 'The fruit of stream-entry admits of falling away.'"

25.27

On the Śāstra's statement: "If trainees ... firmly accomplished": Taking this opportunity, it explains how what is maintained by both worldly and supramundane paths is not fallen away from.

25.28

On the Śāstra's statement: "If one abides in this position ... one also definitely does not fall away": This explains the two, the adept and the trainee. If one was in the position of being liable to fall away in earlier stages, and in the stage of the path of cultivation advanced from falling away to reflection and so on, or from reflection to preservation and so on, these newly attained lineages admit the possibility of falling away. If in both the adept and trainee stages one previously abided in reflection or preservation, or abided in the lineage of being able to penetrate, upon reaching the stage of an adept one definitely does not fall away, because having been maintained through both paths, one does not fall away in either case.

25.29

On the Śāstra's statement: "The fruit obtained here ... admits of falling away from the fruit": This explains that if one's earlier stage was of the lineage liable to fall away, one admits of falling away from the fruit; if one's earlier stage was of reflection and so forth, one does not admit of falling away from the fruit.

25.30

On the Śāstra's statement: "Moreover, there is also no falling away ... falling away from the fruit of stream-entry": This explains that although one was liable to fall away in the ordinary person's stage, once the fruit of stream-entry is attained, one also definitely does not fall away.

25.31

On the Śāstra's statement: "Therefore, for the fruit of arhatship ... because they increase one by one": This explains that for one who was originally of the lineage liable to fall away and advanced one's faculties upon reaching the fruit of arhatship, the liable to fall away has three, reflection has four, preservation has five, abiding has six, and able to penetrate has seven.

25.32

On the Śāstra's statement: "The four, such as the dharma of reflection ... this would be advancing, not falling away": This explains that if one was originally of the lineage liable to fall away and, upon reaching the adept stage, advanced to reflection and so forth, when one later falls away from the fruit, one returns to abide in the lineage liable to fall away, and does not abide in reflection and so forth.

25.33

On the Śāstra's statement: "For what reason is there definitely no falling away from the first fruit?": Below, it explains the reason why the first fruit has no falling away. This is the question.

25.34

On the Śāstra's statement: "Because what is abandoned by seeing ... there is definitely no principle of falling away": This is the reply. Because what is abandoned by seeing relies on what is without an objective fact (vastu), it is strictly non-existent. This has three levels: First, because the entity of a self does not exist, it is called "without an objective fact"; second, the view of individuality operates based on the locus of a self, and since the entity of a self does not exist, it is called "relying on what is without an objective fact"; third, the remaining defilements abandoned by seeing take the view of self as their root, so when the view of individuality does not fall away, there is also no principle by which they could fall away.

25.35

On the Śāstra's statement: "If so, one should say that these defilements take non-existence as their object": This is an objection. The view of individuality relies on a self; since the entity of a self does not exist, it ought to arise taking non-existence as its object.

25.36

On the Śāstra's statement: "It is not that this takes non-existence as its object ... not taking it as its object as it truly is": This is the reply. Since the view of individuality arises dependent on the physical person, it takes the truth of suffering as its domain. Just as one does not know it as it truly is, one regards the phenomena of suffering as a self.

25.37

On the Śāstra's statement: "Among all the defilements, which is not like this?": This is an objection. Greed, anger, conceit, and so forth all take the domain of the truths as their object without knowing it as it truly is, so they ought to be called "without an objective fact"; why should only the defilements of view be so?

25.38

On the Śāstra's statement: "Although all are like this ... distinct from what is abandoned by cultivation": This is the explanation. Although all take the truths as their domain without knowing them as they truly are, there is a distinction. Because each of the defilements abandoned by cultivation permanently involves the distinction of agreeable and disagreeable, and this characteristic is not non-existent with respect to the cognized object, they are called "having an objective fact". The defilements abandoned by seeing impute a self, annihilation, or permanence, but the domain of the truths does not have the characteristics of a self and so on; thus, being distinct from the path of cultivation, they are called "without an objective fact".

25.39

On the Śāstra's statement: "That is, with respect to form and so on ... defilements relying on what is without an objective fact": This specifically explains that the defilements of the path of seeing are called "without an objective fact".

25.40

On the Śāstra's statement: "As for what is abandoned by cultivation ... defilements relying on what has an objective fact": This specifically explains that the defilements of cultivation are called "relying on what has an objective fact".

25.41

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, the defilements abandoned by seeing ... defilements relying on what is without an objective fact": This re-explains that the defilements of seeing are called "relying on what is without an objective fact".

25.42

On the Śāstra's statement: "The defilements abandoned by cultivation ... defilements relying on what has an objective fact": This re-explains that the defilements of cultivation are called "relying on what has an objective fact".

25.43

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, the defilements abandoned by seeing ... are called relying on what has an objective fact": Here, principle (yukti) is taken as "without an objective fact", and concrete fact (vastu) as "having an objective fact". By explaining why the defilements of seeing do not fall away, it expands upon defilements having and lacking an objective fact.

25.44

On the Śāstra's statement: "The principles of the truths are real ... there is falling away through loss of mindfulness": This is the second explanation of why defilements of seeing do not fall away. The preceding explanation distinguished falling away and non-falling-away of abandonment by whether the defilement's object lacks or has an objective fact. This explanation distinguishes falling away and non-falling-away by whether the known domain is principle or concrete fact.

25.45

On the Śāstra's statement: "Or the defilements abandoned by cultivation ... there is definitely no principle of falling away": This explains falling away and non-falling-away by the distinction between arising defilements with deliberation and without deliberation.

25.46

On the Śāstra's statement: "The Sautrāntika masters say ... what they say is reasonable": The author of the Śāstra critically evaluates and adopts the Sautrāntika explanation.

25.47

On the Śāstra's statement: "How is this known to be so?": This is the Sarvāstivādin asking. "The Śāstra says: 'Because of scripture and reasoning'": This is the author of the Śāstra answering.

25.48

"The Śāstra says: 'How is it known through scripture?'": This is the Sarvāstivādin asking.

25.49

On the Śāstra's statement: "A sūtra says: 'Monks ... but not an arhat'": Two sūtras are cited to prove that what is truly abandoned by noble wisdom is not fallen away from. Because the fruit of arhatship is not fallen away from, the Buddha does not command them to be heedful.

25.50

On the Śāstra's statement: "Although there is a sūtra saying ... because one falls away from this": The author of the Śāstra harmonizes the sūtra. While it says material gain also obstructs an arhat, it does not say one falls away from arhatship, but only that one falls away from dwelling happily in the present life, citing the unshakable liberation of mind as proof.

25.51

On the Śāstra's statement: "If it is claimed that there is falling away ... therefore it is called 'cherished'": The author of the Śāstra harmonizes the sūtra on the liberation of mind cherished at times.

25.52

On the Śāstra's statement: "Some say this absorption ... therefore it is not called 'cherished'": This re-explains that the nature of the fruit of arhatship cherished at times is liberation. Furthermore, because it has already been attained, one no longer seeks it, so it cannot be called "cherished at times"; hence we know "cherished at times" refers to dwelling happily in the present life.

25.53

On the Śāstra's statement: "If the nature of the fruit of arhatship ... there would be a principle of being able to fall away": It re-cites the preceding sūtra to explain by challenging from the contrary.

25.54

On the Śāstra's statement: "From this it is proven ... one should consider this properly": This confirms that all fruits of arhatship are unshakable. However, sharp and dull faculties have falling away and non-falling-away with respect to dwelling happily in the present life, establishing the dharma of falling away, the dharma of non-falling-away, as well as reflection, preservation, and so forth. The Nyāyānusāra extensively establishes that the fruit of arhatship admits of falling away.

25.55

On the Śāstra's statement: "What is the distinction between non-falling-away, abiding, and unshakable?": This asks about the differences among the three.

25.56

On the Śāstra's statement: "Not attained through training faculties ... there is also no principle of falling away": This answers with the distinguishing characteristics of the two: non-falling-away and unshakable.

25.57

On the Śāstra's statement: "One of the dharma of abiding ... the three distinctions": This answers with the characteristic of abiding. "These are the three distinctions of non-falling-away and so forth" summarizes it.

25.58

On the Śāstra's statement: "However, Godhika ... the fruit of arhatship": The author of the Śāstra harmonizes the sūtra. The Sarvāstivādins maintain that Godhika fell away from the fruit of arhatship and regained it. In the Sautrāntika tenet, Godhika fell away repeatedly in the stage of a trainee and, profoundly disgusted with himself and so on, attained the fruit of arhatship at the time of death.

25.59

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, the Sūtra of the Tens ... speaks twice of the fruit of arhatship": The sūtra says: "One dharma should be given rise to, namely, cherished liberation of mind. One dharma should be realized, namely, unshakable liberation of mind." The Sautrāntikas maintain that unshakable liberation of mind is the fruit of arhatship. If it were not so, why would it speak twice of the fruit of arhatship?

25.60

On the Śāstra's statement: "Moreover, nowhere has it ever ... but only says it should not be realized": This refutes by showing that no sūtra speaks of the fruit of arhatship as "should be given rise to".

25.61

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, speaking of dull faculties ... what meaning is this intended to show?": This refutes on the grounds of meaninglessness.

25.62

On the Śāstra's statement: "If it were to show that ... it would be what should most be given rise to": This refutes by granting and refuting through progressive elimination.

25.63

On the Śāstra's statement: "Therefore, liberation at times is not the nature of the fruit of arhatship": This is the summary conclusion.

25.64

On the Śāstra's statement: "If so, why is it spoken of as the fruit of arhatship of liberation at times?": This is the Sarvāstivādin asking. Since liberation at times is not the entity of the fruit of arhatship, why is it said that there are arhats of liberation at times?

25.65

On the Śāstra's statement: "That is, there are fruits of arhatship ... is named 'liberation not at times'": This is the Sautrāntika answering. The designations are established according to whether one depends on time or does not depend on time to attain absorption.

25.66

On the Śāstra's statement: "In the Abhidharma ... because of improper mental application": This cites the Abhidharma. Latent defilements arise from three conditions; since the fruit of arhatship does not possess these three conditions, one knows it does not fall away.

25.67

On the Śāstra's statement: "If it is said that this is based on ... the causes are not completely present for it to arise": The Sautrāntika refutes their attempted rescue by granting it.

25.68

On the Śāstra's statement: "This is called 'through scripture'": This concludes the scriptural proof.

25.69

On the Śāstra's statement: "How is it through reasoning?": This is the Sarvāstivādin asking.

25.70

On the Śāstra's statement: "If an arhat ... this is called 'through reasoning'": This is the Sautrāntika answering.

25.71

On the Śāstra's statement: "If so, one should explain the Sūtra on the Simile of the Charcoal": From this point onward, the Sarvāstivādins cite a sūtra to rescue their position.

25.72

On the Śāstra's statement: "As it says, one who has learned much ... the fruit of arhatship": They cite the Simile of the Charcoal to prove that there is falling away.

25.73

On the Śāstra's statement: "From this sūtra saying ... about to enter nirvāṇa": The Sarvāstivādins conclude that this must be the fruit of arhatship because it says "about to enter nirvāṇa".

25.74

On the Śāstra's statement: "In other sūtras ... is called the power of the fruit of arhatship": Secondly, this proves it is the fruit of arhatship.

25.75

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, this sūtra says ... is an arhat": Thirdly, this proves that the one who falls away is an arhat.

25.76

On the Śāstra's statement: "What is truly stated again is an arhat": The Sautrāntika records and cites the subsequent passage: "Has been able to permanently vomit out everything associated with the outflows, and has attained coolness"; according to this subsequent passage, this is indeed an arhat.

25.77

On the Śāstra's statement: "However, up to that point ... it is possible for defilements to arise": The Sarvāstivādin posits that up to that point, when walking or standing, defilements could arise due to lapses. Because this is spoken with respect to trainees, there is no error; later, when one becomes an adept, there is no falling away.

25.78

On the Śāstra's statement: "The Vaibhāṣika masters ... also admits of falling away": This states the Sarvāstivādin tenet. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Mahāsāṃghikas and others hold that the fruit of stream-entry admits of falling away, while the fruit of arhatship does not fall away. The Sautrāntikas hold that neither stream-entry nor arhatship falls away. The Sarvāstivādins hold that stream-entry does not fall away, while arhatship admits of falling away.

25.79

On the Śāstra's statement: "Only arhats have six lineages": From this point onward, in half a line of verse, it secondly explains the six lineages in trainees and ordinary persons.

25.80

On the passage from “The text says” to “because those serve as their precursor”: this clarifies that trainees and ordinary persons also possess the six spiritual lineages, because the six lineages of ordinary persons and trainees serve as precursors to those of the fruit of the arhat.

25.81

Regarding the treatise text “However, in the stage of the path of seeing […] as in the stage of the non-trainee”: this clarifies that among the three stages of ordinary persons, the path of seeing, and the path of cultivation, there is no refining of the faculties in the path of seeing, while in both the stage of ordinary persons and the stage of cultivation there is refining of the faculties, just as in the stage of the non-trainee. Fascicle 7 of the Vibhāṣā says: “The factors conducive to liberation also have six types, namely, the lineage liable to falling away, and so on. Transforming the lineage conducive to liberation that is liable to falling away, one gives rise to that of deliberation, and so forth; transforming the lineage of deliberation and the like is also thus. Transforming the [lineage of a] disciple, one gives rise to that of a pratyekabuddha and a Buddha; transforming that of a pratyekabuddha, one gives rise to that of a disciple and a Buddha. If one has already attained the factors conducive to liberation of the Buddha-lineage, it cannot be transformed, because it is extremely sharp. It is also said that the aids to penetration have six lineages.”

25.82

Regarding the treatise text “As the sūtra says: ‘I declare that by this he attains the four higher minds’”: the following verse of one line is the third part, which clarifies the distinctions among the three kinds of falling away. The “four higher mental states” refer to the four dhyānas. The point of this question is: The sūtra speaks of “unshakeable liberation of mind, falling away from dwelling in pleasant abiding in the present life,” which is the fruit of the unshakeable phenomenon. Now it is asked: on what basis does an unshakeable one fall away from dwelling in pleasant abiding in the present life? It is then answered by means of the three kinds of falling away.

25.83

On the passage from “The text says” to “does not become manifest”: this explains the three kinds of falling away. It can be understood from the text.

25.84

Regarding the treatise text “Among these three […] because of the stage already attained”: this sets forth that the number of fallings away possessed by persons differs. It can be understood from the text.

25.85

Regarding the treatise text “In terms of falling away from enjoyment […] there is no fault of contradiction”: this explains and resolves [the passage concerning] the unshakeable one. Saying “falling away from pleasant abiding in the present life” is spoken in terms of falling away from enjoyment.

25.86

Regarding the treatise text “Those who maintain non-falling-away […] should not raise this objection”: “those who maintain non-falling-away” refers to the Sautrāntikas and others. [For them,] all undefiled liberations are called non-falling-away; why then does the sūtra speak of six lineages? As resolved earlier: it is spoken in terms of defiled pleasant abiding in the present life.

25.87

Regarding the treatise text “Since it is accepted that arhats fall away from the fruit”: the following verse of one line is the fourth part, which clarifies the timing of falling away from the fruit, and so on.

25.88

On the passage from “The text says” to “a place of trust”: this clarifies that upon falling away from the fruit, one does not die. Fascicle 61 of the Vibhāṣā says: “Furthermore, the fundamental stage of the fruit possesses five causal conditions: first, abandoning the path previously attained; second, attaining a path not previously attained; third, realizing the uniform acquisition of the cessation of fetters; fourth, suddenly attaining the eight knowledges; fifth, simultaneously cultivating the sixteen aspects. Therefore, when falling away from the fruit, before regaining it, there is no principle [by which] one dies. In the approaches [to the fruits] it is not so; therefore, when falling away from them, although one has not yet regained them, there is the possibility of death.” The Nyāyānusāra says: “Who has falling away, and who does not? One who enters the noble path having cultivated the contemplation of the impure may fall away. One who enters the noble path having cultivated mindfulness of breathing definitely does not fall away. Respecting calin-abiding or insight, and having an increase in non-attachment or non-delusion, should be known respectively as possessing falling away or non-falling-away. In which realms and which destinies is falling away possible? Falling away occurs only in the three continents of the desire realm. As for those who attain the noble fruit in the six desire-realm heaven stations, some say: because they have sharp faculties, they do not fall away, since they possess superior wisdom capable of subduing the mind and enter the noble path having turned their backs on exquisite objects of desire. Some say: those who fall away do so due to lacking supporting resources or due to an imbalance in the physical basis; in the six desire-realm heaven stations, both matters are absent. Even if one of dull faculties belonging to the lineage of following through faith is born there and attains the noble [state], there is also no principle of falling away.” It also says: “Does one who falls away do so by giving rise to afflictions? Or does one first fall away and only then do [afflictions] become manifest? The Prakaraṇapāda states that afflictions arise due to three causes, namely, that which is not yet abandoned, and so on. The resolution says: this refers to possessing all conditions; there are also cases where they are lacking. Immediately after which mind do afflictions arise causing falling away? As for falling away from the non-trainee [stage] by giving rise to afflictions: if one falls away by giving rise to the entanglements of the form or formless realms, it arises exclusively and immediately from a wholesome mind associated with concentration conducive to falling away of its own ground; it is not that an unobstructed neutral mind subsumed under a higher ground becomes manifest while abiding in the desire realm, except only for the result of supernormal power, yet one does not fall away from that. Is it not that the factors conducive to falling away are each abandoned when separating from the defilements of their respective grounds; how then, in a non-trainee who has not fallen away and gives rise to afflictions, could that mind become manifest? In principle, it is indeed so. However, there are three types of factors conducive to abiding: first, those slightly conducive to falling away; second, those slightly conducive to progress; third, those maintaining one’s own level. What was said earlier about the concentration conducive to falling away of one’s own ground refers precisely to a fraction among those conducive to abiding. Because it is slightly conducive to falling away, it receives the name ‘conducive to falling away.’ However, because this mind of concentration largely overlaps with maintaining one’s own level, it is subsumed under the factors conducive to abiding. In those who have not lost the factors conducive to falling away, afflictions become manifest immediately following that mind; if one abandons that mind, then from what is subsumed under abiding—that which is slightly conducive to falling away—one gives rise to afflictions conducive to falling away. Therefore, there is no contradiction with the text and meaning. If one falls away by giving rise to desire-realm entanglements, they can become manifest immediately following either of the two minds of its own ground: wholesome and unobstructed neutral. In all those falling away from the stage of the trainee due to defilements of knowledge: when falling away by giving rise to form and formless realm afflictions, if one has previously completely separated from the defilements of that ground, they arise exclusively and immediately from a wholesome mind associated with concentration conducive to falling away of that ground; if one has not yet completely separated from the defilements of that ground, they can become manifest immediately following both wholesome and defiled minds subsumed under that ground. If one falls away by giving rise to [afflictions of] the desire realm: if one has previously completely separated from the defilements bound to the desire realm, they can become manifest immediately following either of the two minds of its own ground: wholesome and unobstructed neutral; if one has not yet completely separated from the defilements of the desire realm, they can become manifest immediately following the three minds—wholesome, defiled, and unobstructed neutral—of the desire realm. If one has not presently obtained the pure dhyānas and formless [attainments], one definitely cannot give rise to the entanglements of the form and formless realms and fall away from what was attained; or else, immediately from that, one gives rise to desire-realm entanglements and falls away from what was attained. If one has presently obtained the pure dhyānas but has not yet presently obtained the pure formless [attainments], one definitely cannot give rise to formless entanglements and fall away; one gives rise to desire and form-realm entanglements and falls away from what was attained. If one has already presently obtained both pure dhyānas and formless [attainments], one may universally give rise to entanglements of the desire, form, and formless realms and fall away from what was attained. When falling away from what was previously attained, if one falls away with a higher entanglement becoming manifest, lower wholesome [minds] do not arise and lower afflictions are not accomplished. If one falls away with a lower entanglement becoming manifest, one definitely loses higher wholesome [qualities] and definitely accomplishes higher afflictions. Furthermore, there are those who hold that one must first have lost and fallen away, and only afterward, when encountering objects, do afflictions become manifest.” Fascicle 61 of the Vibhāṣā states: “Question: Does one give rise to afflictions upon falling away, or not? One theory says afflictions arise; another says they do not. Evaluation: Between these two theories, the former is superior. Only when afflictions arise and become manifest does one fall away from superior virtues. This refers to the stage of falling away; if it is one of the lineage liable to falling away, it is not necessary that afflictions become manifest without falling away, because there are those of the lineage liable to falling away in the stage of the non-trainee.”

25.89

Regarding the treatise text “Furthermore, abiding in the fruit […] although stumbling, one does not collapse”: this clarifies that when falling away from the fruit, one does not perform deeds that cause falling away from the fruit.

25.90

Regarding the treatise text “As stated above, it is attained through the refining of faculties”: the two lines of verse below form the fifth part, which clarifies the differences in refining faculties. Fascicle 67 of the Vibhāṣā says: “If the non-returner fruit was attained relying on a certain ground, then relying on that ground one subsequently transforms the faculties; or relying on another ground, which must be superior and not inferior.” Again, fascicle 68 says: “Can one fall away from the stream-enterer fruit without accomplishing the fetters to be abandoned by seeing? Answer: Yes, namely, when one falls away from a superior lineage.” It also says: “Warmth, Peak, Patience, and Highest Mundane Phenomena: because these are proximate preparations for the noble path, because their aspects taking the truths as object resemble the noble path, and because their physical basis and concentration are identical to the path of seeing—whereas previous stages are not so—six lineages are not established [for earlier stages]. There is also the meaning of transforming faculties, namely: transforming the characteristics of the lineage of Warmth liable to falling away to give rise to the Warmth of the deliberation phenomenon, up to transforming the faculty capable of attainment to give rise to the faculty of the Warmth lineage of unshakeable phenomena; transforming disciple Warmth to give rise to pratyekabuddha Warmth; transforming disciple and pratyekabuddha Warmth to give rise to the faculties of Buddha Warmth lineage. As with the stage of Warmth, so it is with Peak. The stage of Patience has differences, namely: transforming the Patience of the phenomenon liable to falling away to give rise to the Patience of deliberation, gradually up to transforming the lineage faculty of the Patience capable of attainment to give rise to the lineage faculty of the Patience of unshakeable phenomena; transforming disciple Patience to give rise to pratyekabuddha Patience. There is no meaning of transforming the disciple or pratyekabuddha Patience lineage faculty to give rise to Buddha Patience. Why is this? Patience transcends the bad destinies. All who attain Patience attain analytical cessation regarding the bad destinies. The Bodhisattva sometimes, riding the power of great vows, is born into the bad destinies to benefit sentient beings. Therefore, in the stage of Patience for the two vehicles, there is no principle of proceeding to the Buddha vehicle. Some say: the Warmth and Peak of a pratyekabuddha also do not transform to proceed to the Buddha vehicle. Evaluation: For those resembling a rhinoceros horn, transforming to proceed to the Buddha vehicle in the stages of Warmth and Peak does not contradict principle. Because of this, the former explanation is logically sound. In the stages of trainee and non-trainee, the preparatory path of transforming faculties applies to both what has been previously attained and what has not been previously attained. Although the uninterrupted and liberation paths are not previously attained, the preparatory path applies to both defiled and undefiled, and future cultivation is also thus. The uninterrupted and liberation paths are exclusively undefiled, and future cultivation is also exclusively undefiled. The ninth liberation of the non-trainee applies to both defiled and undefiled, because at that time one cultivates the wholesome roots of the three realms as appropriate.”

25.91

On the passage from “The text says” to “because what is accomplished is firm”: this clarifies the non-trainee’s refining of faculties.

25.92

Regarding the treatise text “In the stage of the trainee […] because of contradiction with the superior”: this clarifies the trainee’s refining of faculties. “Contradiction with the superior” means it is not maintained by the two paths of trainee and non-trainee.

25.93

Regarding the treatise text “Its preparatory path is designated as one for each stage”: this clarifies that the preparatory paths for trainee and non-trainee are each one.

25.94

Regarding the treatise text “Thus the uninterrupted […] because it is not superior”: this clarifies that the uninterrupted and liberation paths of refining faculties use exclusively the undefiled path. The Nyāyānusāra says: “The great masters whose teachings I have received all said: The refining of faculties is entirely for the sake of eliminating the manifest activity of unobstructed neutral ignorance induced by the power of afflictions abandoned by seeing and cultivation. Those who cultivate refining of faculties in the stage of the trainee do so precisely to eliminate what is generated by afflictions of seeing. Those who cultivate refining of faculties in the stage of the non-trainee do so precisely to eliminate what is generated by afflictions of cultivation. Just as when abandoning the afflictions capable of generating them, there is a certain number of uninterrupted and liberation paths that arise, so too the number of paths that sever the manifest activity of ignorance generated by them is the same. Therefore, when the non-trainee cultivates refining of faculties, nine uninterrupted and nine liberation paths are used; for refining faculties in the stage of the trainee, the two paths are each one. However, the ignorance generated by the afflictions of seeing and cultivation has many varieties corresponding to the differences in what is obstructed. Therefore, when transforming [the lineage] liable to falling away and so on to accomplish [that of] deliberation and so on, each path that becomes manifest has that which it eliminates; because of this, there is no leaping over to attain a superior lineage.” It also says: “Why is it called refining the faculties? Because one tempers and refines the faculties to cause them to increase. That is, due to the power of the path, one causes the faculties in their continuum to abandon the inferior and attain the medium, to abandon the medium and attain the superior, gradually increasing in superiority, which is called refining the faculties. Therefore, the term ‘refining faculties’ designates the meaning of transforming faculties. Although through the eight liberations one gradually attains superior faculties, because one’s original aspiration seeks a superior lineage, before attaining the superior lineage one does not abandon the previous inferior [lineage], just as one abandons the previous approach only upon attaining the subsequent fruit. If one attains a superior lineage in the noble stage, one definitely abandons the previous inferior one. Those who cultivate refining of faculties in the stages of Warmth and the like merely attain the superior lineage without the inferior lineage operating, which is called transforming faculties, not abandoning the inferior to attain [the superior].”

25.95

Regarding the treatise text “The support means the body and ground […] meaning excluding the last three”: this clarifies the support. The support is twofold: first, the bodily support. Trainees and non-trainees both rely on bodies of the three continents, because elsewhere there is no falling away. If it is a place where falling away occurs, there can be refining of faculties; elsewhere there is no falling away, so there is no refining of faculties. It also means the ground. Non-trainees rely on nine, trainees rely on six.

25.96

On the Śāstra's "Why is this? … it relies only on six grounds": this explains the reason. For the non-trainee, honing the faculties is like attaining the fruit of arhatship, and therefore it extends to nine grounds. For the trainee, honing the faculties means abandoning the dull fruit and the approach; one attains only the sharp fruit. The trainee's prior fruit [stream-enterer] relies only on the threshold concentration. The third [fruit, the non-returner,] extends to six grounds and does not rely on the formless realm, just as with the path of seeing. For this reason, when one in the trainee stage trains their faculties: if they abide in the fruit-path, the three [paths] of preliminary application and so forth are all subsumed under the fruit-path. If they abide in the superior-fruit path, preliminary application and the uninterrupted [path] are subsumed under the superior-fruit path; the liberation [path] is subsumed under the fruit of the path. When one abiding in the non-trainee stage trains their faculties, the three [paths] of preliminary application and so forth are subsumed only under the fruit-path. Whenever those abiding in the fruit stage hone their faculties, they abandon a fruit and attain a fruit. When those abiding in the superior-fruit stage hone their faculties, they abandon both and attain a fruit. Furthermore, when all noble stages hone their faculties, the ground may be identical with or different from the ground where the fruit was originally attained: the grounds relied upon for the first and second fruits are necessarily identical; for the non-returner and the fruit of arhatship, the grounds relied upon are indefinite—either relying on their original ground, or above or below. Where there is a difference: if non-returners hone their faculties relying on a lower [ground], they do not attain a higher fruit. Not so for the arhat, because it is like their original attainment of the fruit. According to this treatise text, one who enters the path of seeing relying on a root ground also trains their faculties, because non-returners attain the fruit relying on a higher ground and train their faculties relying on a lower ground. The arbitrator in fascicle sixty-seven of the Vibhāṣā says: "It should be said thus: if one has already attained mastery over a higher ground and trains to transform the faculties relying on a lower ground, they also attain the higher ground's anāsrava fruit-path. However, when transforming faculties, one does not attain the formless [realm], because there is definitely no fruit of the non-returner there." The Nyāyānusāra is based on those who lack mastery over the higher ground, whereas the Vibhāṣā's statement on attaining the higher fruit is based on having mastery; there is no contradiction.

Linked texts (1)

俱舍論疏 — Classical Chinese