大乘義章 17.9

Next, the fifth section distinguishes their intrinsic characteristics. Within this, there are two parts: 1. discussing them in general terms, and 2. explaining them individually. In discussing general terms, division and combination are not fixed, and they are analyzed by increasing numbers. They may be subsumed as one: namely, the single śrāvaka vehicle among the three vehicles. Or they may be divided into two: namely, the worthy and the noble. Before the path of seeing the truths, harmonizing the mind and departing from faults is called being a worthy; from the path of seeing upward, realizing the truth and fulfilling virtue is called being a noble. Or they may be divided into three. The division into three has three approaches: First, explaining three kinds according to the three types of wisdom: namely, [wisdom arisen from] hearing, reflection, and cultivation. The contemplation of the fivefold pacification of the mind directly arises by relying on instruction, and is described as the wisdom of hearing. The general and specific applications of mindfulness are already distant from instruction; focusing thought to reflect upon the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas is determined to be the wisdom of reflection; because this contemplative practice of the conceptual mind of the desire realm does not arise in reliance upon absorption, it is not called cultivation. From warmth and summit upward, arising in reliance upon the wisdom of cultivation in dhyāna absorption, it is determined to be cultivation. Second, distinguishing three kinds according to outer worldlings, inner worldlings, and nobles. The contemplation of the fivefold pacification of the mind and the general and specific applications of mindfulness are determined to be outer worldlings; the four mental states of warmth and the rest are described as inner worldlings; from the path of seeing upward is described as noble, the meaning of which will be explained later. Third, dividing into three according to the paths of provisional means, of the learner, and of the non-learner. Practicing the seven provisional means prior to the path of seeing is called the path of provisional means: the contemplation of the fivefold pacification of the mind, the general and specific applications of mindfulness, and the four mental states of warmth and the rest are the seven provisional means. From the forbearance of suffering upward, intensely seeking the truth is described as the path of the learner. The arhat who ceases seeking the truth is called the path of the non-learner. Question: Warmth and the rest also seek the truth; for what reason are they not called the path of the learner? Explanation: Broadly speaking, they are also learners. Distinguishing them specifically within that, their learning is not exclusive, nor is their learning yet accomplished; therefore they are not called learners. Question: Cultivation and learning are similar in meaning. If the four mental states of warmth and the rest are not called learners because their intent to learn is not exclusive and their practice of learning is not accomplished, then since their mind of cultivation is not exclusive and their practice of cultivation is not accomplished, for what reason are they determined to be the wisdom of cultivation within the approach of the three types of wisdom? Explanation: Both cultivation and learning have broad and restricted senses. In the broad sense of learning, relying on the gate of the three trainings, all practices of learning morality, absorption, wisdom, and so forth may also be called learning; thus warmth and the rest may also be called learning. In the restricted sense of learning, only when from the forbearance of suffering upward the mind of learning is pure and focused, and the practice of learning is accomplished, is it called learning; since warmth, summit, forbearance, and the rest are not yet focused and accomplished in learning, they are not called learning. In the broad sense of cultivation, relying on the approach of the three types of wisdom, all practices arising based on hearing and based on reflection are equally called cultivation; thus warmth and the rest may all be called cultivation. In the restricted sense of cultivation, only after the fruit of srotāpanna when one repeatedly contemplates the truths does it receive the name cultivation; others are given different names according to their meanings and cannot be called cultivation. When equated, the explanations are like this; but discussing them in terms of implicit and explicit: cultivation is broad and learning is narrow, so they cannot be equated. How is cultivation broad? The eight worldly dhyānas are all subsumed under the wisdom of cultivation, and warmth and the rest all arise cultivated in reliance upon dhyāna absorption; therefore they can be called cultivation. How is learning narrow? Learning looks solely toward the truth, whereas warmth and the rest are only beginning to learn contemplation with respect to the truth, being neither exclusive nor accomplished; therefore they are not called learning. Question: Why does cultivation extend to the worldly, whereas learning looks solely toward the truth? Explanation: Cultivation has two meanings: 1. the meaning of cultivating habituation, cultivating dharmas not yet attained so that they arise; 2. the meaning of cultivating rectification, cultivating and rectifying dharmas already attained so that they are maintained. Worldlings originally have already attained dhyāna absorption, but later defilement arises or makes it impure; because they cultivate it to purify it, with respect to the eight worldly dhyāna absorptions and the like it can be called cultivation. Learning is solely the meaning of intentional practice: intentionally practicing dharmas not yet attained so that they arise. The supramundane noble path has not yet been attained; one realizes it only through habituation and learning; therefore it is called learning with respect to the noble path. With respect to dharmas already attained, the meaning of learning is subtle and hidden; therefore, one does not speak of learning with respect to previously attained worldly dharmas. So much for implicit and explicit. Or they may be divided into four. The division into four has two approaches: First, explaining four according to the paths: namely, the path of provisional means, the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path of the non-learner—these are the four. Practicing the seven provisional means prior to the forbearance of suffering is called the path of provisional means. What are the meanings of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation? At the initial entry into nobility, investigating and clarifying the four noble truths is called the path of seeing; repeatedly reflecting and advancing upon the four noble truths is described as the path of cultivation. Where are their stages divided? If based on the *Tattvasiddhi*, entering the stage of signlessness is called the path of seeing; thus that treatise states, 'The two persons of faith and dharma entering the path of seeing the truths is called signless practice. Between after the worldly supreme dharmas and before the fruit of srotāpanna, the uninterrupted contemplation of emptiness is called signless practice.' If based on the *Abhidharma*, from the forbearance of suffering onward through the culmination of fifteen moments of mind is called the path of seeing. As for 'fifteen': abandoning the afflictions of seeing the truths has sixteen moments of mind, namely eight forbearances and eight knowledges—the eight forbearances being unobstructed [paths], and the eight knowledges being [paths of] liberation. In severing the defilements of seeing the truths of the desire realm, there are four dharma-forbearances as unobstructed [paths], namely dharma-forbearance of suffering up to dharma-forbearance of the path; there are four dharma-knowledges as liberation, namely dharma-knowledge of suffering up to dharma-knowledge of the path. In severing the defilements of seeing of the higher realms, there are four subsequent forbearances as unobstructed [paths], namely subsequent forbearance of suffering up to subsequent forbearance of the path; there are four subsequent knowledges as liberation, namely subsequent knowledge of suffering up to subsequent knowledge of the path. Among these sixteen, the first fifteen moments of mind are the candidate for srotāpanna, determined to be the path of seeing; the final single moment of mind is the fruit of srotāpanna, not included in the path of seeing, and for this reason is not mentioned. Such is the path of seeing. Question: Warmth and the rest also contemplate the four truths; for what reason are they not called the path of seeing? Although they learn contemplation, they are not yet able to see; for this reason they are not taken as such. From after the candidate for sakṛdāgāmin up to before the diamond-like [samādhi] of the anāgāmin is definitively determined to be the path of cultivation, because they repeatedly take the truth of the truths as object to sever the defilements of cultivation. The fruit of srotāpanna is determined to be the path of cultivation in the Abhidharma doctrine; in the Tattvasiddhi doctrine there is no definitive determination in the text, but deduced purely by principle it is also determined to be cultivation. How is this known? That treatise states, 'The two persons of faith and dharma entering the path of seeing the truths is called signless practice.' It does not say that entering seeing is called srotāpanna; thus it is clear that srotāpanna is cultivation, not seeing. Moreover, in the *Abhidharma* it is determined to be the path of cultivation, and the *Tattvasiddhi* does not refute this; thus it is clear that they share this view. The determinations of the treatises are like this, but deducing finely according to principle, that fruit of srotāpanna is both seeing and non-seeing, and both cultivation and non-cultivation. How is it seeing and yet also non-seeing? Seeing has two meanings: 1. the meaning of investigation; 2. the meaning of clarity. That fruit of srotāpanna realizes the abandonment of the defilements of seeing, the darkness confusing the truths being exhausted, and illuminates the truths with clarity; therefore it can be called seeing. Because it is seeing in this sense, it is called the stage of seeing in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*. Furthermore, the fruit of srotāpanna corresponds in meaning to the first bhūmi in the Mahāyāna, and the *Daśabhūmika-śāstra* proclaims that the first bhūmi is called the path of seeing; hence it is clear that srotāpanna can be described as seeing.

However, the srotāpanna is an attained fruit; as a locus where contemplation rests and investigation is temporarily halted, it does not accord with "seeing" [i.e., the path of seeing], and for this reason it is also said not to be "seeing". Because it is not "seeing", treatises classify it as the path of cultivation. Furthermore, in the Mahāyāna, the srotāpanna corresponds in meaning to the stage of the perfected mind of the first ground; the Bodhisattvabhūmi declares that the perfected mind of the first ground is the practice of cultivated wisdom, from which we clearly know that the srotāpanna is cultivation and not seeing. Why, then, is it both cultivation and also said not to be cultivation? There are two kinds of cultivation: first, broad, auxiliary contemplation of the truths to increase clarity, which is termed "cultivation"; second, re-contemplating the truths to increase clarity and further eliminating the afflictions of cultivation, which is therefore termed "cultivation". As for that fruit of the srotāpanna, on the side of ample liberation from the afflictions [cut by seeing] the truths, its collateral cultivation is broad and manifold: in the present, it only takes as its object a single practice under the path, but in the future, it collaterally attains increased clarity in all the sixteen noble practices of the four truths, because it sees clearly whatever it wishes to contemplate. In accordance with this meaning, its practice is entitled to the name "cultivation"; and because it is this cultivation, treatises call it the path of cultivation. Yet, because it has not yet re-pondered and observed the four truths to further eliminate the afflictions of cultivation, it is called "non-cultivation"; and because it is non-cultivation, treatises call it the "ground of seeing" and not the "ground of thinning". Such is the correct doctrine. Some assert: "The fruit of the srotāpanna realizes the eradication of the afflictions of seeing and definitely belongs to the path of seeing; it cannot be called cultivation." This meaning is not so. If the fruit of the srotāpanna, realizing the eradication of the afflictions of seeing, were exclusively called "seeing", then that fruit of the arhat, realizing the eradication of the afflictions of cultivation, should be called the "path of cultivation". Yet it is not called cultivation; since the srotāpanna is analogous to it, why labor in doubt? The fruit of the arhat is called the ground of the non-learner. Question: It was just said that the fruit of the srotāpanna, realizing the eradication of the afflictions of seeing, is both seeing and non-seeing, undecided between the two meanings. Is the fruit of the arhat, which realizes the eradication of the afflictions of cultivation, likewise undecided or not? Explanation: In the sūtras, the arhat is called a "non-learner" and not called "cultivation". When deduced in fine detail through the meaning, it is also both cultivation and non-cultivation. What does this mean? There are two kinds of cultivation: first, re-contemplating the truths to increase clarity is termed "cultivation"; second, collaterally cultivating the various knowledges to increase clarity is spoken of as "cultivation". That arhat's contemplation of the truths is complete and progresses no further, hence it is called "non-cultivation"; and because it is non-cultivation, the sūtras call it "non-learning". Yet alongside the arhat's non-learner mind, it collaterally cultivates the various knowledges, causing them all to increase in clarity, hence it can be called "cultivation"; and because it is this cultivation, the Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya declares that when the non-learner mind appears, it can cause all virtues to increase in clarity, which is termed "the cultivation that brings forth and manifests great clarity". Question: It was said earlier that the fruit of the srotāpanna is also both cultivation and non-cultivation, and can be compared to the arhat; is it also both non-learning and not non-learning, or not? Explanation: There are both similarities and differences. In terms of their similarities: the fruit of the srotāpanna is also both cultivation and non-cultivation, as explained above. That arhat is also both a non-learner and not a non-learner: having ceased seeking with respect to the principle, it is called a "non-learner"; yet regarding treatise discourses, samādhis, supernormal powers, and the like, one must still practice them as before, hence one is called a "learner". In terms of their differences: after the fruit of the srotāpanna, there are separately the sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, and so on as the correct cultivation; in contradistinction to them, the srotāpanna is called "non-cultivation". But in the Hīnayāna, after the fruit of the arhat there is no further non-learner; one cannot, in contradistinction to anything, call the arhat a "non-non-learner". This is the first gate: distinguishing four in terms of the path. Second, explaining four in terms of the fruit. The fruits are the srotāpanna, sakṛdāgāmin, anāgāmin, and arhat. In distinguishing these four, there are specifically three gates: first, explaining their names; second, determining and distinguishing their characteristics; third, clarifying their establishment. What are the names and meanings? "Srotāpanna" is a foreign word, and its exegetical explanation has three aspects: First, translating the name directly, it is called "cultivating the untainted", as the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "'Srota' means untainted, and 'āpanna' means cultivation; because one cultivates the untainted, one is called a srotāpanna." Second, translating collaterally according to the meaning, it is called "going against the stream"—going against the stream of saṃsāra, because one will never again undergo saṃsāra in the three evil paths. Third, translating collaterally according to the meaning, it is also called "repudiating debt", as one rejects the causes of the three paths and will not receive the retribution, hence it is called "repudiating debt". "Sakṛdāgāmin" is also a foreign word, and its exegetical explanation has two aspects: First, translating the name directly, it is called "light and thin". The designation is established in contrast to what precedes: among the nine grades of afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm, six grades have been eliminated, hence it is called "light and thin". Second, translating collaterally according to the meaning, it is called "once-returning", a designation distinguishing it from what follows: because the bonds of desire have not yet been exhausted, one repeatedly takes rebirth in the desire realm, unlike the anāgāmin who once gone does not return; hence it is called "once-returning". The old translated sūtras all display this name. "Anāgāmin" is also a foreign word; here it is translated as "non-returning", a title received in contrast to what precedes. The bonds of the desire realm having been exhausted, one will not come to take rebirth again; hence it is called "non-returning". "Arhat" is also a foreign word. In the foreign language, three names are interconnected: first, "araha", which here means "worthy of offerings"; second, "arihan", which here means "slayer of foes"; third, "arahan", which is directly translated here as "unborn". Following the meaning, there are three translations; collaterally it is spoken of as "non-attachment". When non-attachment causes are destroyed, one is no longer attached or tainted by the dharmas of the three realms; when non-arising retributions are eliminated, one no longer receives a body with attachment in the grounds of the three realms. As for the implicit and explicit [senses] of these four, in principle and reality they are inclusive and shared; because they are inclusive and shared, all are called srotāpanna, and up to all being called arhat. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Because these four kinds all cultivate the untainted, together go against saṃsāra, and are all able to repudiate debt, therefore all of them are called srotāpanna; because all thin out afflictions, all are collectively called sakṛdāgāmin; because all are free of returning with respect to what has been eradicated, all are collectively called anāgāmin; and because all possess the meaning of non-attachment and non-arising, all are called arhat." In order to distinguish the worthy and the noble by making the names explicit or implicit, the first fruit is exclusively named srotāpanna, and up to the fourth being exclusively styled arhat. If they equally divide the worthy and noble, why is the first fruit exclusively named srotāpanna, and up to the fourth being exclusively styled arhat? There is indeed a reason. What is the meaning? Surpassing the ordinary to enter the noble, one first cultivates the untainted; therefore the first fruit is exclusively named srotāpanna. As the untainted increases, it can thin out afflictions; therefore the second is exclusively called sakṛdāgāmin. As afflictions become thinner, one is not reborn into desire; therefore the third is exclusively named anāgāmin. Non-arising reaches its ultimate, forever departing all existences; therefore the fourth is exclusively named arhat. Furthermore, cultivating the untainted clarifies the practice of the causes of the path; thinning afflictions clarifies the realization of the actual fruits. Causes come first and fruits come after: this is the sequence of the meaning. Therefore the first fruit clarifies cultivating the untainted, and the second fruit clarifies thinning afflictions. The preceding thinning of afflictions clarifies the destruction of their causes, and non-returning clarifies the demise of the fruit: causes coming first and fruits after is likewise the sequence, hence the third fruit clarifies non-returning. The preceding fruit of non-returning clarifies that suffering has been partially exhausted, and non-arising clarifies that it has been totally exhausted: proceeding from the partial to the total is likewise the sequence, hence the fourth fruit clarifies non-arising.

Question: Are these names restricted to the Hīnayāna, or do they also apply to the Mahāyāna? Answer: If one enters the gate of hidden and manifest discourse, they pertain exclusively to the Hīnayāna; if one enters the universal gate, they are also found in the Mahāyāna, as the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "And also because they can cultivate the untainted, abide in attenuation, not return, and not be reborn." Such are their names and meanings. Next, the second gate defines their characteristics individually. Srotāpanna has three aspects: First is abiding in the fruition. According to the *Abhidharma*, only the sixteenth mind, the cognition of the doctrine of the path, is called the srotāpanna. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, it is the cognition conforming to the former [condition] after the signless practice that is called the srotāpanna; everything else is not, because this is where the fruition is realized and one rests. Second is subsuming the cause. The preceding seven expedient means and the mind of the path of seeing direct toward the srotāpanna; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the srotāpanna. Third is progressing toward [the next]. After the fruition of the srotāpanna, progressing to sever the bonds of the desire realm, there are six unhindered [paths] and five paths of liberation that have not yet reached the subsequent fruition; subsuming the end under the beginning, they all belong to the srotāpanna. Now, among these four, it universally subsumes all three kinds together as the srotāpanna, because it does not divide the distinction between practice and fruition. As for the sakṛdāgāmin, generally speaking there are also three: First is abiding in the fruition. In cultivating the antidote for the desire realm, there are nine unhindered [paths] and nine paths of liberation; the mind of the path of liberation of the sixth grade is the sakṛdāgāmin, and all others are not, because this is where the fruition is realized and one rests. Second is subsuming the cause. After the fruition of the srotāpanna, progressing to sever the six grades of cultivation afflictions of the desire realm, there are six unhindered [paths] and five liberations directing toward the sakṛdāgāmin; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the sakṛdāgāmin. Third is progressing toward [the next]. After the fruition of the sakṛdāgāmin, progressing to sever the bonds of the desire realm, there are three unhindered [paths] and two paths of liberation that have not yet reached the anāgāmin; subsuming the end under the beginning, they are all called the sakṛdāgāmin. According to the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, these three kinds of persons are all named sakṛdāgāmins, "having already traversed the directions of contemplation." Now, among these four, it distinguishes only abiding in the fruition and progressing toward [the next] as the sakṛdāgāmin, likewise because it does not divide the distinction between practice and fruition. The one [aspect of] subsuming the cause is assigned to the first fruition, which is why it is not taken here. As for the anāgāmin, there are also three kinds: First is abiding in the fruition. Among the nine liberations of cultivating the antidote for the desire realm, the ninth grade is the anāgāmin, because this is where the fruition is realized and one rests. Second is subsuming the cause. After the fruition of the sakṛdāgāmin, progressing to sever the final three subtle grades of the bonds of the desire realm, there are three unhindered [paths] and two paths of liberation directing toward the anāgāmin; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the anāgāmin. Third is progressing toward [the next]. After the fruition of the anāgāmin, progressing to sever all cultivation afflictions from the first dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, excluding the ninth liberation of the stage of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, all remaining unhindered and liberated [paths], subsuming the branches under the root, are collectively named anāgāmin. Now, among these four, it specifically distinguishes abiding in the fruition and progressing toward [the next] as the anāgāmin, likewise because it does not divide the distinction between practice and fruition; the one [aspect of] subsuming the cause is assigned to the preceding fruition, which is why it is not taken here. As for the arhat, there are two kinds: First is abiding in the fruition. Among the nine liberations of the single stage of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, the very last grade is the arhat, and all others are not, because this is the mind realizing fruition of the stage of non-learning. Second is subsuming the cause. After the fruition of the anāgāmin, progressing to sever all bonds from the first dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, all unhindered [paths] and, excluding the mind of the last grade's path of liberation, the remaining liberations direct toward the arhat; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the arhat. After the fruition of the arhat, there is nothing higher toward which to direct, so there is no progressing toward [the next]. Now, among these four, it specifically distinguishes abiding in the fruition as the arhat. The one [aspect of] subsuming the cause is assigned to the anāgāmin, which is why it is not taken here. Question: Why is it that in the first fruition cause is subsumed under fruition, whereas in the others it is not so? Answer: Prior to that first fruition, there is no other fruition to which they can be assigned; therefore the beginning is subsumed under the end. Before the subsequent three fruitions, there are fruitions to which they can be assigned, so they do not comply with what follows. Question: Why is it that all [phases of] progressing toward [the next] belong to the preceding fruition and not to the subsequent? Answer: When giving rise to the path of progressing toward the subsequent, the attainment of the preceding fruition has still been accomplished and not yet abandoned; therefore it is named after the preceding. The attainment of the subsequent fruition is not yet accomplished and not yet present; therefore it does not comply with what follows. Furthermore, complying with what follows would destroy the distinction among the four fruitions; therefore it does not comply with what follows. How would it destroy it? If one subsumed the preceding approach under the subsequent fruition: the sakṛdāgāmin "abides in attenuation," but this would be mixed with the meaning of non-attenuation; the anāgāmin "does not return," but this would be mixed with the meaning of returning; the arhat "is not reborn," but this would be mixed with the meaning of being reborn. Hence it is called destruction. If one subsumes progressing toward [the next] under the preceding fruition, it does not destroy the srotāpanna's meaning of cultivating the untainted, does not destroy the sakṛdāgāmin's meaning of abiding in attenuation, does not destroy the anāgāmin's meaning of not returning, and does not destroy the arhat's meaning of not being reborn; therefore it must belong to the preceding. Furthermore, the four fruitions are pure virtues spoken of at the points of emergence from hindrances; the preceding approaches are not yet pure, so they do not comply with what follows. Furthermore, if the approach were subsumed under the subsequent fruition, the noble ones would commit the error of arrogance. What is arrogance? Where it is not yet attenuated, giving rise to the conception of attenuation; where one does not yet not-return, giving rise to the conception of non-returning; where one is not yet not-reborn, giving rise to the conception of non-rebirth—this is called arrogance. Because of these many hindrances, all paths of progressing toward [the next] are distinguished separately across the four fruitions; thus they belong to the preceding fruition and do not comply with what follows. Question: If complying with what follows has many errors, why does the first fruition subsume the approach under what follows? This is as explained above: prior to the first fruition there is no fruition to which it can belong, so it is drawn to comply with what follows. Question: If you say that prior to the first fruition there is no fruition to which it can belong, so the approach is subsumed under what follows, whereas for the rest there is a preceding fruition, so their subsequent approach is assigned to the preceding; then among the eight dhyānas, prior to the first dhyāna there is no other dhyāna, so that preliminary dhyāna can belong to the first dhyāna; while from the second dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, because there is a preceding dhyāna, the unhindered and liberated [paths] in all those expedient paths of dhyāna should belong to the lower stages and not be subsumed under the upper dhyānas? Answer: They should be parallel, but their doctrinal bases are different and cannot be entirely identical. How are they different? Those eight dhyānas allocate karma in terms of fruition, and all expedient means together with the fundamental dhyāna jointly lead to a single fruition; therefore they all comply with what follows. In defining the doctrine of the four fruitions, fruition is distinguished from cause; therefore the preceding expedient means are assigned to the preceding fruition. Such is the distinction of their characteristics. Next, the third gate establishes the four fruitions. If the noble fruitions were finely divided, there should be immeasurable [fruitions]; why then are specifically these four established? According to the *Vibhāṣā*, they are established through many meanings, which cannot be treated fully. Here they are briefly established through five meanings. First, the four fruitions are established in terms of emerging from contemplation. Wherever a fruition is established, it must be in terms of emerging from contemplation. Why is that? Where one emerges from contemplation, the conception of having attained realization arises; therefore it is in reference to this that a fruition is established. How is this known? The pratyekabuddha's cultivation of the path and severing of bonds is identical to that of the śrāvaka; because they do not frequently emerge, multiple fruitions are not established for them.

Clearly we know that the institution of multiple fruits for śrāvakas is precisely because they frequently emerge [from contemplation]. Why is it that pratyekabuddhas do not frequently emerge from contemplation and do not have multiple fruits instituted, while only śrāvakas do? Pratyekabuddhas have sharp faculties; because of their sharp faculties, their afflictions are slight and thin, like a person of great strength carrying a light burden without resting—so it is with pratyekabuddhas. Śrāvakas have dull faculties; because of their dull faculties, their afflictions are deep and heavy, like a person of little strength carrying a heavy burden who rests with toil—so it is with śrāvakas; because they rest with toil, multiple fruits are instituted. At the culmination of severing the view afflictions of the three realms, they must emerge from contemplation, and based on this emergence, the first fruit is instituted. Question: Why at this point must they emerge from contemplation? Explanation: There are two senses: first, newly severing the view afflictions employs much effort and strength, so they emerge out of exhaustion; second, severing the view afflictions transcends ordinary beings and achieves sagehood, forever cutting off the three wretched paths, so they emerge to rejoice. Severing the six grades of cultivation afflictions in the desire realm also requires emerging from contemplation, hence based on this point the second fruit is instituted. Why upon reaching this point must they again emerge from contemplation? The explanation also has two senses: first, because these afflictions are coarse, strong, and hard to quell, severing them takes effort, so they emerge out of exhaustion; second, having departed from coarse faults, they emerge to rejoice. Severing completely the cultivation afflictions of the desire realm also requires emerging from contemplation, hence based on this point the third fruit is instituted. Why at this point must they again emerge from contemplation? There are also two senses: first, severing the coarse afflictions of the desire realm—such as greed, hatred, stinginess, anger, jealousy, lack of shame, and lack of conscience—uses increased effort, so they emerge out of exhaustion; second, having departed from coarse faults, they emerge to rejoice. Severing all the fetters of the upper two realms also requires emerging from contemplation, giving rise to their thought of the four knowledges being ultimate; hence, also with reference to this, the fourth fruit is instituted. Why at this point must they again emerge from contemplation? There are also two senses: first, severing all afflictions of the upper realms uses increased effort, so they emerge out of exhaustion; second, forever cutting off birth-and-death and culminating in non-learning, they emerge to rejoice. Because at these four points they definitely emerge from contemplation, fruits are instituted based on them; other emergences are indeterminate, hence fruits are not instituted [based on them]. Question: Why is it that in severing the afflictions of seeing the truths they emerge only when finished, whereas in severing cultivation [afflictions] they emerge frequently? Explanation: There are two senses: first, the afflictions of seeing the truths are errors of the mind and are easy to extinguish, just like snapping a stone, which can be completely severed without taking an intermediate rest, like a person walking down a slope who does not rest because it is easy; cultivation afflictions are difficult to eliminate, like breaking lotus threads, and cannot be completely severed in a single continuation of contemplation, hence one must emerge frequently, like a person climbing a mountain who rests with toil because it is difficult. Second, the afflictions of seeing the truths can induce the supreme painful retribution of the three wretched paths; the sentiment of fearing suffering is fierce, therefore they do not rest, like running without resting when traveling on perilous ground; cultivation afflictions can invite the birth-and-death of humans and gods, where humans and gods are leisurely and the mind of aversion and fear is weak, therefore they rest frequently, like running little and resting much in a fearless place. Question: Both belonging equally to cultivation afflictions, why is it that in severing the cultivation afflictions of the desire realm they take an intermediate rest and fruits are instituted, whereas for the upper realms it is not so? Explanation: There are three senses: first, afflictions of the desire realm are frequently aroused by ordinary beings, and the force of their habituated tendencies is strong and difficult to control and sever, hence an intermediate rest is required; as for the afflictions of the upper realms, ordinary beings originally arouse them rarely and slightly, and the force of their tendencies is slight and thin, so they can be completely severed without requiring an intermediate rest. Second, the afflictions of the desire realm are numerous and difficult to sever completely, hence an intermediate rest is required; the afflictions of the upper realms are few and can be exhausted without resting. How are they few? Because hatred, stinginess, jealousy, lack of shame, lack of conscience, and so forth do not exist in those realms. Third, the afflictions of the desire realm arise from two causes and conditions: first, causal power, namely the unsevered nature of tendencies and auxiliary ideation; second, conditional power, namely sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and so forth. Through these two powers, the aroused afflictions are difficult to sever, hence an intermediate rest is required; although the afflictions of the upper realms arise from causes, their conditional power is minute, so they are easily cut off and suppressed, and can be exhausted without resting; because they are exhausted without resting, multiple fruits are not instituted. Question: Both being equally within the desire realm, why is it that only after severing the six grades of afflictions do they rest and a fruit is instituted, while after severing the latter three a single fruit is instituted? Explanation: The former six faults are coarse and heavy, and the sage's aversion and fear toward them are intensified, hence they rest only when these are exhausted; the latter three are slight and subtle, and the sentiment of aversion and fear is lesser, hence they are subsequently severed separately and one fruit is instituted. Furthermore, the coarse is easy to sever, so they rest only after exhausting a double amount; hence severing the former six jointly institutes one fruit; the subtle is difficult to abandon and keep afar, hence severing the latter three establishes one fruit. If so, then the afflictions of the upper realms become progressively subtler and progressively more difficult to abandon and keep afar, so multiple fruits should be instituted. This is as explained before; there are further senses, which will be discussed in a later turn. This concludes the first sense. Second, instituting the four fruits in terms of four outer limits: Severing view afflictions transcends the outer limit of manifesting marks, thus the first fruit is instituted. Furthermore, severing view afflictions cuts off the three wretched paths forever, which is the outer limit of emerging from the evil destinies; hence the first fruit is established. Among these nine grades of cultivation afflictions of the desire realm, the nature of the first six grades is coarse and heavy, capable of producing non-informative matter; severing those fetters is the outer limit of emerging from non-informative matter, hence the second fruit is instituted based on this point. In the stage of the desire realm there is the unwholesome; severing the latter three subtle [grades] is the outer limit of emerging from the unwholesome, hence the second fruit is instituted based on this point. The afflictions of the upper realms are by nature defiled indeterminate dharmas; because of severing them, one departs from the outer limit of the defiled indeterminate, hence the fourth fruit is instituted based on this point. This concludes the two senses. Third, instituting the four fruits in terms of the four floods: As the *Vibhāṣā* says: “Cutting off the flood of views institutes the first fruit. Severing a small portion of the flood of desire establishes the second fruit. Fully exhausting the flood of desire establishes the third fruit. Cutting off the flood of existence and the flood of ignorance institutes the fourth fruit.” Question: Why is cutting off the flood of desire separately instituted as two fruits, while cutting off existence and ignorance jointly institutes one fruit? Because within the flood of desire the coarse and subtle are easy to distinguish, it is divided into two; existence and ignorance are difficult to distinguish as coarse and subtle, hence they are combined into one. This concludes the third sense. Fourth, instituting the four fruits in terms of the four modes of birth: As also stated in the treatise, the first fruit is instituted relative to abandoning moisture-born and egg-born [birth], because these two mostly belong to the destiny of animals; abandoning a small portion of womb-born [birth] establishes the second fruit; completely abandoning womb-born [birth] establishes the third fruit; forever escaping apparitional birth establishes the fourth fruit. This concludes the fourth sense. Fifth, instituting the four fruits relative to the five destinies: As also stated in the treatise, escaping the lower three destinies institutes the first fruit; relative to a small portion of human [birth], the second fruit is established; completely abandoning the human destiny establishes the third fruit; departing from the heavenly destiny institutes the fourth fruit. Alternatively, abandoning human and a small portion of heavenly [birth] establishes the third fruit, and completely escaping the heavenly destiny institutes the fourth fruit. The institution is thus. The above has analyzed this under the four approaches of increasing numerical categories. Alternatively, they are divided into five: First, the external ordinary beings: the contemplation of the fivefold stopping of the mind and the general and specific applications of mindfulness, which settle the mind within phenomenal things and have not yet contemplated the principles of the truths, are called 'external'; because they possess all the base characteristics of death and the ordinary, they are called 'ordinary beings'. Second, the internal ordinary beings.

The four minds—warmth and the rest—learn to contemplate the truth-principles and attain the nature of a noble one, and are therefore called 'internal'; because ordinary qualities have not yet been abandoned, they are called 'ordinary'. The third is the path of vision; the fourth is the path of cultivation; the fifth is the path of no-further-learning. Alternatively, they are divided into six, as stated in the 'Kāśyapa Chapter' of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: 'That [sūtra] says there are seven kinds of sentient beings in the Ganges River, and there are seven kinds of persons in the river of nirvāṇa, from "constantly sinking" up to "proceeding in both". The first, "constantly sinking", is not included among the worthy and noble ones; the latter six are included among the worthy and noble ones.' It is based on this meaning that they are divided into six kinds: The contemplation of the fivefold stopping of the mind up to warmth and summit are collectively taken as 'emerging and sinking back'. Patience and the highest mundane dharma are called 'emerging and staying'. From the patience with suffering up to the fruit of the srotāpanna is called 'surveying the directions'. From after the practice of the sakṛdāgāmin through the completion of the practice of the anāgāmin is called 'having surveyed, proceeding'. From the fruit of the anāgāmin through the candidate for the arhat is called 'having proceeded, staying'. The fruit of the arhat is called 'proceeding in both'. Why is the first division called 'emerging and sinking'? Because in this stage one delights in seeking liberation, it is called 'emerging'; because one's disposition is not yet determined, upon meeting bad spiritual companions one retrogresses and gives rise to faults, sinking into the evil destinies, which is called 'emerging and sinking'. What faults are retrogressively produced? Before the stations of mindfulness, whatever evils there are arise. Regarding retrogression during warmth and summit, treatises and sūtras differ: According to the Abhidharma, except for icchantikas, all other evils are produced. According to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, except for the four grave offenses, the five heinous deeds, slandering the Dharma, and being an icchantika, one only produces the ten non-virtuous actions and other prohibitive offenses. Why are patience and the highest mundane dharma 'emerging and staying'? 'Emerging' is as explained above. Firmly maintaining correct contemplation, not retrogressing to produce evil, and not falling into evil destinies, it is therefore called 'staying'. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'When staying in the dharma of patience, one should know that the immeasurable retributions of the three evil destinies are all non-analytical cessations, and are never received again.' Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'Those with supreme mundane right view will ultimately not fall into evil destinies.' That text refers to patience and the rest as supreme right view. If based on the Tattvasiddhi, from the mind of warmth onward, all are called right view, and as they do not fall into evil [destinies], they are equally titled 'staying'. Why is [the stage from] patience with suffering to the fruit of the srotāpanna called 'surveying the directions'? Because one contemplates the four noble truths. Question: Warmth and the rest equally contemplate the four noble truths; for what reason are they not called 'surveying the directions', while exclusively [the stage from] patience with suffering to the fruit of the srotāpanna is called 'surveying the directions'? Explanation: Warmth and the rest contemplate but have not yet seen, so they are not given this name; from patience with suffering onward, one contemplates the four noble truths and obtains four things, which is why it is exclusively so named. What are the four? First, dwelling on the firm path, in which none of the five faculties can be shaken. Second, being capable of comprehensive observation, thoroughly able to reproach internal and external afflictions: views, doubt, and ignorance directly bewilder one regarding the principles of the truths, and are called internal afflictions; greed, anger, pride, and the like arise based on various views and do not directly bewilder one regarding the principles, so they are called external afflictions. Third, being able to see things as they really are, namely patience and knowledge: the eightfold patience searches, and the eightfold knowledge resolves with certainty. Fourth, being able to destroy the great enemy, meaning breaking the four inversions. For what reason is [the stage] after the practice of the sakṛdāgāmin called 'having surveyed, proceeding'? Relying on the previous contemplation of the truths, one fixes the mind on the path of cultivation in order to sever greed, anger, ignorance, and arrogance of the desire realm; therefore it is called 'proceeding'. For what reason is [the stage] after the fruit of the anāgāmin called 'staying'? The sūtra explains six reasons: First, because one takes birth in the form realm and the formless realm, it is called 'staying'. Second, because one does not receive [birth as] humans, gods, hell-beings, animals, or hungry ghosts of the desire realm, it is called 'staying'. Third, because immeasurable fetters have been severed and only a few remain, it is called 'staying'. Fourth, because one is far removed from the two attachments, stinginess, greed, and anger, it is called 'staying'. Speaking of the 'two attachments', the first is attachment to form, clinging to the appearance of a wife; the second is desire-attachment, clinging to the remaining five desires. Fifth, because one does not engage in activities shared with ordinary people, it is called 'staying'. This refers to sexual desire as an activity shared with ordinary people. Sixth, because one is personally fearless and causes no fear in others, it is called 'staying': having no evil actions oneself, one does not fear painful retributions, hence one is personally fearless; because one does not vex or harm sentient beings, one causes no fear in others. Why is the arhat called 'proceeding in both'? Water is a metaphor for the mundane; land is a metaphor for the supramundane. This arhat is able to contemplate afflictions and arrive at nirvāṇa; therefore, it is called 'proceeding in both water and land'. Alternatively, they are divided into seven: before the path of seeing the truths, three are distinguished according to practice, namely hearing, thinking, and cultivating, the meaning being determined as above; from patience with suffering onward, four are distinguished according to fruit, namely srotāpanna up to arhat, also distinguished as above. Furthermore, according to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the common grounds of the three vehicles can also be divided into seven: First, the ground of dry wisdom, which refers to the fivefold stopping of the mind and the general and specific stations of mindfulness; indeterminate hearing and thinking, not having obtained the water of samādhi to moisten oneself, are therefore called 'dry'. Second, the ground of nature: the four minds of warmth and the rest, learning to contemplate the truth-principles and attaining the nature of a noble one, are therefore called the ground of nature. Third, the ground of the eight persons: during the stage of seeing the truths, fully cultivating the eight patiences, it is called the ground of the eight persons. Fourth, the ground of vision: at the fruit of the srotāpanna, having seen the truths completely, it is called the ground of vision. Fifth, the ground of attenuation: after the practice of the sakṛdāgāmin, gradually severing the fetters of desire, it is called the ground of attenuation. Sixth, the ground of detachment from desire: after the fruit of the anāgāmin, transcending the faults of desire, it is called the ground of detachment from desire. Seventh, the ground of the arhat. These are broadly explained as previously in [the chapter on] the grounds of the three vehicles. Alternatively, they are divided into eight, namely the four candidates and the four fruits: cultivating causes toward the fruit is called 'candidate'; accomplishing virtues following upon causes is spoken of as 'fruit'. When finely divided, candidates and fruits are immeasurable, but now, based on one approach, they are provisionally divided into eight. What are the eight names? Namely, from candidate for the srotāpanna up to candidate for the arhat, and from the fruit of the srotāpanna up to the fruit of the arhat. Among them, they are briefly distinguished through six gates: first, defining their characteristics; second, distinguishing them according to tainted and untainted; third, distinguishing them according to conditioned and unconditioned; fourth, distinguishing them in terms of dhyāna levels; fifth, clarifying the difference between leaping over and not leaping over; sixth, clarifying the meaning of retrogressing and not retrogressing. What are their characteristics? According to the Abhidharma, from the fivefold stopping of the mind up to the subsequent patience with the truth of the path is called the candidate for the srotāpanna, and the mind of subsequent knowledge of the truth of the path is called the fruit of the srotāpanna. If based on the Tattvasiddhi, from the beginning through the stage of signlessness is called the candidate for the srotāpanna, and after the stage of signlessness, the mind contemplating in accordance with the former [wisdom] is called the fruit of the srotāpanna. Because that [treatise] contemplates the four noble truths synthetically and not separately, for this reason it does not speak of the subsequent patience with the truth of the path and so forth as candidate, nor the mind of subsequent knowledge of the truth of the path as fruit. After the fruit of the srotāpanna, advancing to sever the six grades of afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm, having six unimpeded paths and five paths of liberation, is called the candidate for the sakṛdāgāmin; the final mind of the path of liberation for that [sixth] grade is called the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin. After the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, advancing to sever the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades of afflictions of the path of cultivation in the desire realm, having three unimpeded paths and two paths of liberation, is called the candidate for the anāgāmin;