The Ultimate Discrimination of the Bodhisattva's and the Arhat's Masteries

The Heteromorphy of the Two Nirvāṇas (non-abiding, freed of the cognitive obstruction · benefiting beings to the end of future time vs. without-remainder, freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming) · The Vehicle-Distinction of Cutting Obstructions (the bodhisattva cuts both vs. the two vehicles cut only the afflictive) · The Differing Direction of the Turning-of-the-Basis (the vast turning "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" vs. the inferior turning "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death") — To Discriminate Is to Discriminate Kind, Not Rank

中文主題：菩薩自在與阿羅漢自在的終極分判——二涅槃異構，異質而非高下

I. The Live Question

By now the nine papers of The Bodhisattva's Mastery have established the faces of the bodhisattva's mastery: P01 established that it is signed by "not-taking-the-realization," not succeeding the arhat-fruit (heteromorphic, not higher-or-lower); P02 its boundless two accumulations; P03/P04 its ten grounds and four added perfections; P05 the four embraces, altruism is mastery (the śrāvaka cannot see); P06 the cognitive signature of the forbearance of non-arising; P07 effortless non-regress; P08 the eighth ground's ten masteries; P09 its ultimate core — non-abiding nirvāṇa (abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time). What all nine disclose: the bodhisattva's mastery is a mastery that refuses its own final rest.

So the last question must be faced: what, in the end, is the relation between the bodhisattva's mastery (non-abiding nirvāṇa · refusing the final rest) and the arhat's mastery (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · no-more-becoming · taking the final rest, whose doctrine this axis's ARHAT-P07 has established)? This is the division's load-bearing closing question. One reading is all too easy to fall into — to read the two as "higher and lower on one ladder": the arhat's mastery a "lower liberation" (self-deliverance only), the bodhisattva's a "higher liberation" (able to benefit others too), the bodhisattva's mastery "surpassing and subsuming" the arhat's. This reading looks natural (the Mahāyāna canon does abound in words exalting the bodhisattva over the two vehicles), yet it is just what the division's opening, P01, set out to break — P01 established plainly that the bodhisattva's mastery "does not succeed the arhat-fruit," its sense being not "the bodhisattva's mastery is a continuation or upgrade of the arhat's" but "the bodhisattva's mastery is heteromorphic with the arhat's, not on one ladder to be ranked." As the close, this paper must keep P01's claim and carry it through: the ultimate discrimination of the two masteries is a discrimination in kind, not a discrimination of rank.

What is "discriminating their kind, not adjudicating their rank"? To "discriminate" (here fēnpàn) is to discern them as two heteromorphic kinds — as one discerns "a fish's swimming" and "a bird's flying" to be two heteromorphic kinds of "movement," not to judge "flying" higher than "swimming" or the reverse. The fish swims well and cannot fly; the bird flies well and cannot swim; each fulfills its nature, each accomplishes its capacity; to discern their difference is to let each be true in its own right (the fish's swimming is not made inferior by the bird's flight, nor the bird's flight by the fish's swimming), not to arrange an order of higher-and-lower. So too with the discrimination of the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries: the arhat's mastery is signed by "taking its own final rest" (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming), the bodhisattva's by "refusing its own final rest" (non-abiding nirvāṇa · benefiting beings to the end of future time) — the two heteromorphic, like the differing directions of "taking the rest" and "refusing the rest," not the rank of "taking-the-rest is low · refusing-the-rest is high." This paper's "ultimate discrimination" is just this: to discriminate the ultimate of their kind (down to the root of their heteromorphy), letting the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries each be true in its own right, without adjudicating which is ultimate, without arranging one ladder, without ranking superior and inferior.

Why must this boundary of "in kind, not in rank" be kept, rather than following the common Mahāyāna route of simply judging the bodhisattva higher than the two vehicles? For four reasons (detailed in §V). First, to judge rank requires a common measure (only on one ladder can higher-and-lower be spoken). But the two masteries tend toward heteromorphic ends (the one toward the without-remainder's quiescence · the other toward non-abiding's altruism to the end of future time), with no common measure by which to weigh them (measure the arhat by "benefiting beings to the end of future time," and the arhat is "inferior"; measure the bodhisattva by "all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming," and the bodhisattva is "unfinished" — each measure favoring its own tradition, neither the middle way). Second, the judgment of "the turning of the lesser toward the great" (the two vehicles turning the mind toward the Mahāyāna) and "whether the two-vehicle is ultimate" (whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is itself ultimate, or must turn back into the buddha-path) is a major contested question within Mahāyāna doctrine (the Dharma-character school's "five natures distinct" vs. the Tiantai/Huayan one-vehicle-ultimate, the readings diverging widely); its adjudication belongs to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal choice, not something this paper's discrimination may usurp. Third, non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection, "only the buddha has all four" (Yogācāra ¹), belongs to the tathāgata division and the author; this paper discriminates only the bodhisattva's mastery (the causal-stage orientation toward non-abiding) and the arhat's, not touching the adjudication of the fruit-stage perfection. Fourth, the arhat's mastery must be presented on its own terms (the Āgama/Kośa's own tradition), which holds the no-comment teaching on the substance of the nirvāṇa-realm (not declaring whether the tathāgata exists after death · the nirvāṇa-realm neither existent nor non-existent; ARHAT-P07 has kept this boundary plainly, not adjudicating the substance of the nirvāṇa-realm); were this paper, with the Yogācāra adjudication of "the without-remainder is freed of the afflictive obstruction · the two vehicles cut only one obstruction," to judge the arhat's mastery "inferior to" the bodhisattva's outright, that would be to impose the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra measure of doctrinal classification upon the Āgama's own tradition — which is both unfair (the Āgama's own tradition does not grant this judgment) and contrary to P01's claim that "the arhat's mastery is real and not inferior." So this paper's adjudicative terms (freed of the cognitive / the afflictive obstruction · cutting both / cutting one · the vast / the inferior turning) all issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification, and this paper marks them transparently as "the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra viewpoint of discrimination," not the arhat's own self-understanding; toward the arhat's own tradition (Āgama/Kośa), this paper respects its boundary of no-comment, not forcing a judgment of rank upon the substance of its nirvāṇa-realm.

The thesis: the ultimate discrimination of the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries is a discrimination in kind (discriminating them as two heteromorphic kinds of mastery), not a discrimination of rank (not adjudicating which is superior · not arranging one ladder · not adjudicating the two-vehicle's ultimacy or the turning of the lesser toward the great [the author's]) — the two heteromorphic in three: the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas (non-abiding, freed of the cognitive obstruction · benefiting beings to the end of future time vs. without-remainder, freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming), the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions (the bodhisattva cuts both vs. the two vehicles cut only the afflictive), and the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis (the vast turning "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" vs. the inferior turning "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death"); to discriminate is to discriminate their kind, letting each be true in its own right. The argument: §II presents the canon (the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas in the Yogācāra four-nirvāṇa schema and "no different from the buddha but without the work of benefiting others" · the vehicle-distinction "the two vehicles cut only the afflictive, the bodhisattva cuts both" · the differing direction in the vast and the inferior turning); §III discriminates in three layers (the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas, not a rank, 3.1; the differing direction of cutting obstructions and the turning-of-the-basis, 3.2; the difference of taking-or-refusing future becoming and the overall discrimination in-kind-not-in-rank, 3.3); §IV is cut, with reason given in §VI; §V corrects misreadings and marks the four boundaries (discrimination is not rank · not adjudicating the turning of the lesser toward the great or the two-vehicle's ultimacy [the author's] · "only the buddha has four" belongs to the tathāgata division · the arhat presented on its own terms, real and not inferior); §VI concludes, gathering the division's nine papers, carrying through P01's claim of "in kind, not in rank," and opening the tathāgata division and the author's doctrinal adjudication.

A boundary flagged here (detailed in §V): this paper's adjudicative terms (freed of the cognitive / the afflictive obstruction · cutting both / cutting one · the vast / the inferior turning) issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification, marked here as "the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra viewpoint of discrimination," not the arhat's own tradition's (Āgama/Kośa) self-understanding; the arhat's own tradition holds the no-comment teaching on the substance of the nirvāṇa-realm (ARHAT-P07), which this paper respects, not forcing a judgment of rank upon its substance. And: this paper discriminates only the bodhisattva's mastery (the causal-stage orientation toward non-abiding nirvāṇa) and the arhat's, and does not adjudicate the turning of the lesser toward the great, whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate, or non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four) — all three belonging to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal choice and the tathāgata division's domain.

II. Canonical Basis

This section presents three clusters of canonical basis: the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas (the Yogācāra four-nirvāṇa schema · the two-vehicle's without-remainder station "no different from the buddha but without the work of benefiting others," 2.1); the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions ("the two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction, the bodhisattva cuts both" · each obstruction obstructing one fruit, 2.2); the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis (the Saṃgraha's inferior and vast turning, 2.3). The sources are the Cheng weishi lun (T1585) and the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (T1593), the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification; the canonical basis for the arhat's side (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · no-more-becoming · the no-comment teaching, in the Saṃyukta-āgama, the Abhidharmakośa, and the Parable of the Arrow) has been established in this axis's ARHAT-P07, to which this paper cross-refers without re-copying, keeping the boundary of "the arhat presented on its own terms."

2.1 The Heteromorphy of the Two Nirvāṇas: Non-Abiding (Freed of the Cognitive Obstruction · Benefiting Beings to the End of Future Time) and Without-Remainder (Freed of the Afflictive Obstruction · All Suffering Forever Quieted)

The heteromorphy of the nirvāṇas toward which the two masteries tend is the root of the discrimination. The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 10, in its four-nirvāṇa schema, already sets out side by side the difference of these two nirvāṇas (P09 having treated the four nirvāṇas in full; this paper takes the contrast of the third and the fourth):

Third, nirvāṇa without remainder — the suchness freed of the suffering of birth-and-death, where, the afflictions being ended, the remaining basis too is extinguished and all suffering forever quieted, hence called nirvāṇa. Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa — the suchness freed of the cognitive obstruction, ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting beings to the end of future time, functioning yet ever quiescent, hence called nirvāṇa.²

The heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas is plain in this passage. The without-remainder nirvāṇa — "freed of the suffering of birth-and-death · the afflictions being ended · the remaining basis too extinguished · all suffering forever quieted": its mark is "all suffering forever quieted" (all suffering forever extinguished · no-more-becoming), what it is freed of is the afflictive obstruction (the afflictions being ended), its direction is "the resolution of birth-and-death" (the remaining basis too extinguished). The non-abiding nirvāṇa — "freed of the cognitive obstruction · ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom · abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa · benefiting beings to the end of future time · functioning yet ever quiescent": its mark is "functioning yet ever quiescent · benefiting beings to the end of future time" (giving rise to the great function of benefiting others while its substance is ever quiescent), what it is freed of is the cognitive obstruction, its direction is "non-abiding in both extremes · benefiting beings to the end of future time." The two are heteromorphic: the one "all suffering forever quieted" (the utmost of quiescence · suffering ended and stopped there), the other "functioning yet ever quiescent · to the end of future time" (quiescent yet ever functioning · altruism without end); the one freed of the afflictive obstruction, the other of the cognitive; the one "no-more-becoming" (coming no more into birth-and-death), the other "to the end of future time" (ever between the two extremes of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, benefiting beings). This is not the rank of "forever-quieted is low · ever-functioning is high," but the differing direction of "taking the rest" and "refusing the rest to function" (detailed in 3.1).

And on the sameness and difference of the two-vehicle's without-remainder station and the buddha, the Yogācāra has a subtle passage of adjudication that is just the pivot of the discrimination:

In this station there is only the pure suchness, free of marks, profoundly tranquil, quiescent and at ease; on this account it is said to be no different from the buddha; but because it is without the work of awakening and benefiting others, it is further said to differ from the buddha.³

This passage adjudicates the "sameness" and "difference" of the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa station and the buddha. As to "sameness": "in this station there is only the pure suchness, free of marks, profoundly tranquil, quiescent and at ease; on this account it is said to be no different from the buddha" — as to the "pure suchness · free of marks · profoundly tranquil · quiescent and at ease," the two-vehicle's without-remainder station is no different from the buddha (the quiescent suchness the two vehicles realize is not inferior to the buddha's). As to "difference": "but because it is without the work of awakening and benefiting others, it is further said to differ from the buddha" — as to "awakening (the awakened knowing) · the work of benefiting others (the function of benefiting beings to the end of future time)," the two-vehicle's without-remainder station differs from the buddha (the two vehicles lack this work of awakening and benefiting others, which the buddha has). The subtlety of this passage is just that it points out: the difference of the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa from the buddha (and from the non-abiding nirvāṇa the bodhisattva tends toward) lies not in the quiescence of the suchness realized (here there is no difference) but in the presence or absence of the work of awakening and benefiting others (here there is difference). In other words, the root of the discrimination lies not in "the depth or rank of quiescence" (in quiescence there is no difference), but in "whether, beyond quiescence, the function of benefiting others arises" (the heteromorphy of direction) — the without-remainder rests in "quiescence and ease" (taking its quiescence), while the non-abiding, beyond quiescence and ease, further "great compassion and wisdom · benefits beings to the end of future time" (refusing to rest in quiescence and giving rise to function). This is the Yogācāra's own self-attested pivot of the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas.

2.2 The Vehicle-Distinction of Cutting Obstructions: The Two Vehicles Can Cut Only the Afflictive Obstruction; the Bodhisattva Cuts Both

The heteromorphy of the obstructions the two masteries cut is the second basis of the discrimination. The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 9, adjudicates the distinction in cutting obstructions between the two vehicles and the bodhisattva, brief in word but decisive in sense:

The two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction; the bodhisattva cuts both.⁴

"The two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction" — the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, the two vehicles, can cut only the afflictive obstruction (the obstruction of grasping a pervasively-imagined real self); "the bodhisattva cuts both" — the bodhisattva cuts both the afflictive and the cognitive obstructions. This distinction of "cutting one obstruction" versus "cutting both" must be joined to the sense of "each obstruction obstructing one fruit" for its discriminative meaning to appear. The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 9, adjudicates each obstruction's obstructing one fruit (cited in P09; taken here to mark the vehicle-distinction):

The afflictive obstruction … able to obstruct nirvāṇa, is named the afflictive obstruction. The cognitive obstruction … able to obstruct awakening, is named the cognitive obstruction.⁵

Each obstruction obstructs one fruit: the afflictive obstruction obstructs nirvāṇa (liberation), the cognitive obstruction obstructs awakening (the awakened knowing). Joining the two passages: the two vehicles cut only the afflictive obstruction, and so remove only what "obstructs nirvāṇa," gaining nirvāṇa (the without-remainder · liberation from birth-and-death) — their cutting stopping at the afflictive obstruction, their attainment too stopping at nirvāṇa (liberation), not reaching awakening (the cognitive obstruction uncut, the obstruction to the awakened knowing still present). The bodhisattva cuts both, and so removes what "obstructs nirvāṇa" and what "obstructs awakening," tending toward non-abiding nirvāṇa and awakening (the awakened knowing · great compassion and wisdom) — his cutting reaching the cognitive obstruction too, what he discloses reaching the dharma-emptiness suchness · great compassion and wisdom too (freed of the cognitive obstruction · benefiting beings to the end of future time, 2.1).

This "vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions" is the mechanism-level ground of the heteromorphy of the two masteries: the arhat's mastery is signed by "cutting the afflictive obstruction · gaining the without-remainder nirvāṇa" (cutting one obstruction · resolving birth-and-death), the bodhisattva's by "cutting both obstructions · tending toward non-abiding nirvāṇa and awakening" (cutting both · benefiting beings to the end of future time). To be marked with care (detailed in §V): this adjudication of "cutting one / cutting both" issues from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra system of doctrinal classification (taking "cutting both obstructions" as the bodhisattva's capacity, "cutting only the afflictive obstruction" as the two vehicles' limit); toward the arhat's own tradition (Āgama/Kośa), the arhat's "exhaustion of the outflows" (the outflows exhausted · greed, hatred, delusion forever ended) is itself, in its own tradition, the ultimate liberation it grants, the Āgama not taking "the cognitive obstruction uncut" as a lack in the arhat ("the cognitive obstruction" being a Mahāyāna-Yogācāra construct). So this paper takes the "vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions" to mark the heteromorphy of the two masteries (differing in what they cut · differing in what they tend toward), marking it as the Yogācāra viewpoint of doctrinal classification, and does not, by "cutting only one obstruction," judge the arhat's mastery "inferior" (the arhat, in its own tradition, is the ultimate of the exhaustion of the outflows · real and not inferior; see §V and ARHAT-P07).

2.3 The Differing Direction of the Turning-of-the-Basis: The Vast Turning "For Forsaking-and-Not-Forsaking" and the Inferior Turning "One-Pointedly Turning the Back on Birth-and-Death"

The heteromorphy of the direction of the two masteries' turning-of-the-basis is the third basis. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, fascicle 3, adjudicates the bodhisattva's turning-of-the-basis (the vast turning) as distinct from the śrāvaka's (the inferior turning); the passage was established in P09, taken here to mark the two directions of the discrimination:

Fifth, the inferior turning: because the śrāvaka comprehends the selflessness of persons, and one-pointedly turns his back on birth-and-death, for forever forsaking birth-and-death. Sixth, the vast turning: because the bodhisattva comprehends the selflessness of dharmas, contemplating therein the merit of quiescence, for forsaking-and-not-forsaking.⁶

The śrāvaka's turning-of-the-basis is the "inferior turning" — "comprehending the selflessness of persons · one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death · for forever forsaking birth-and-death," its direction "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death" (single-directionally turning away from birth-and-death · forever forsaking birth-and-death to tend toward quiescence); the bodhisattva's is the "vast turning" — "comprehending the selflessness of dharmas · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking," its direction "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" (both forsaking [defilement] and not-forsaking [birth-and-death, to deliver beings]). The Saṃgraha names these two turnings "inferior" and "vast," with, in the Mahāyāna-Saṃgraha classification, an intent that exalts the bodhisattva; yet the doctrinal core of its adjudicative terms lies in the difference of direction between "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death" and "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" — the inferior turning a "single-directional exit" (turning the back on birth-and-death toward quiescence · one direction), the vast turning a "bidirectional non-abiding" (forsaking defilement yet not forsaking birth-and-death · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking · abiding in neither extreme). This answers precisely to the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas at 2.1 (the without-remainder "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death" toward all suffering forever quieted · the non-abiding "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" toward benefiting beings to the end of future time) and to P09's "non-abiding in both extremes."

To be marked (detailed in §V): the Saṃgraha's terms "inferior turning / vast turning" carry, in the Mahāyāna-Saṃgraha classification, an evaluative cast ("inferior" against "vast"); this paper, in taking this passage, takes its doctrinal core of "the difference of direction" (one-pointedly turning the back vs. for forsaking-and-not-forsaking), and does not take its terms' evaluative ranking (not judging the śrāvaka's turning "inferior" merely because the Saṃgraha names it so). Why? Because the rank-judgment of "inferior / vast" belongs precisely to the contested Mahāyāna question of "the two-vehicle's ultimacy · the turning of the lesser toward the great" (the author's, §V); and to take "inferior" as "inferior" outright would contradict the boundary that "the arhat's own tradition is real and not inferior" (the śrāvaka's "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death · forever forsaking birth-and-death" being, in the Āgama's own tradition, just the right path of its liberation by the exhaustion of the outflows · real and not inferior). So this paper renders these two turnings' heteromorphy by "the difference of direction" (single-directional exit vs. bidirectional non-abiding), marking the Saṃgraha's evaluative terms "inferior / vast" as "the Mahāyāna-Saṃgraha viewpoint of doctrinal classification," not as the arhat's own tradition's self-judgment.

III. Core Argument

§II has shown that "the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas · the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions · the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis" is the plain word of the canon. This section discriminates in three layers, each carrying through the claim of "in kind, not in rank": the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas, not a rank (3.1); the differing direction of cutting obstructions and the turning-of-the-basis (3.2); the difference of taking-or-refusing future becoming and the overall discrimination (3.3).

3.1 The Heteromorphy of the Two Nirvāṇas, Not a Rank: Taking the Final Rest vs. Refusing the Final Rest

The first layer of discrimination is the heteromorphy of the nirvāṇas toward which the two masteries tend — and this heteromorphy is a "difference of direction," not a "difference of rank."

The heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas (2.1) can be put in a word: the arhat's mastery is signed by "taking its own final rest" (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming), the bodhisattva's by "refusing its own final rest" (non-abiding nirvāṇa · refusing to rest in quiescence and giving rise to great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time). "Taking the rest" and "refusing the rest" are two heteromorphic directions — as, reaching a resting place on a road (the final rest), one enters and rests there (taking the rest · the without-remainder · this journey here complete and resolved), the other passes the door without entering and journeys on to benefit beings (refusing the rest · the non-abiding · this journey not stopping here but to the end of future time).

The key: this difference of "taking / refusing the rest" is not higher-and-lower on one ladder, but two heteromorphic perfections. Why not a rank? Because each is, in its own tradition, perfect, each true in its own right. The arhat's "taking the rest" (the without-remainder · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming) is, in the arhat's own tradition (Āgama), the perfect resolution of its path — the "cessation" of suffering-origination-cessation-path realized, the round of birth-and-death exited, the task done · no-more-becoming; this is the real perfection of the arhat's mastery (ARHAT-P07 having established its sense: no-more-becoming is not annihilation · but the stilling of suffering · real and not inferior). The bodhisattva's "refusing the rest" (the non-abiding · benefiting beings to the end of future time) is, in the bodhisattva's own tradition (Yogācāra/Prajñā), the perfect unfolding of its path — great compassion and wisdom in twofold flow · non-abiding in both extremes · altruism without end; this is the real perfection of the bodhisattva's mastery. The two heteromorphic, each perfect: measure by the arhat's "perfection of taking the rest," and the bodhisattva's "not taking the rest" seems "unresolved" (yet the bodhisattva never aimed at resolving birth-and-death, but at benefiting beings to the end of future time, so it is not unfinished); measure by the bodhisattva's "refusing the rest to benefit others," and the arhat's "taking the rest" seems "not benefiting others" (yet the arhat never aimed at benefiting beings to the end of future time, but at the self-realized cessation of suffering, so it is not deficient). Each measure favoring its own tradition, and by each other's measure each appears "lacking" — which shows precisely that the two have no common measure by which to weigh rank (as one cannot ask whether "the fish swims 'not high enough,' the bird flies 'not deep enough'"). This is the exact sense of "in kind, not in rank": not that one scores low on the other's measure, but that the two are simply not on the same measure at all.

The Yogācāra's adjudication "no different from the buddha, but without the work of benefiting others" (2.1 / ³) is a subtle gloss on just this "in kind, not in rank": the two-vehicle's without-remainder station and the buddha are, as to the quiescent suchness, "no different" (in the realization of quiescence, the two vehicles are not inferior to the buddha) — which shows that the difference of the two masteries lies not in "the rank of quiescence" at all (were it in the rank of quiescence, the suchness the two vehicles realize would be inferior to the buddha's, yet the Yogācāra adjudicates plainly "no different"); their difference lies in "the presence or absence of the work of awakening and benefiting others" (differing in "whether, beyond quiescence, the function of benefiting others arises"), which is just the heteromorphy of "taking the rest / refusing the rest to function," not "the depth or rank of quiescence." So even within the bodhisattva-exalting Yogācāra classification, the quiescence the two vehicles realize is "no different from the buddha" — further proof that the discrimination of the two masteries is a discrimination in kind (differing in direction · differing in work), not a discrimination of rank (in quiescence, no difference).

✅ Doctrinally sound: the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas — the without-remainder (freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming · "taking" the final rest) and the non-abiding (freed of the cognitive obstruction · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time · "refusing" the final rest), their difference the differing direction of "taking / refusing the rest" (Yogācāra four-nirvāṇa schema ²). This difference is not higher-and-lower on one ladder, but two heteromorphic perfections (each true in its own tradition · no common measure by which to weigh them); the Yogācāra's "the two-vehicle's without-remainder station is no different from the buddha, but without the work of benefiting others" ³ proves that their difference lies not in "the rank of quiescence" (here no difference) but in "whether, beyond quiescence, the function of benefiting others arises" (here difference) — heteromorphic, not ranked.

3.2 The Differing Direction of Cutting Obstructions and the Turning-of-the-Basis: Cutting One · One-Pointedly Turning the Back vs. Cutting Both · For Forsaking-and-Not-Forsaking

The second layer of discrimination is the differing direction of the two masteries' cutting of obstructions and turning-of-the-basis — and this differing direction too is "in kind," not "a rank of capacity."

Joining 2.2 and 2.3: the arhat's mastery "cuts only the afflictive obstruction · the inferior turning · one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death" (cutting one obstruction and gaining nirvāṇa · single-directionally exiting birth-and-death toward quiescence), the bodhisattva's "cuts both obstructions · the vast turning · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" (cutting both and tending toward non-abiding and awakening · bidirectionally not-abiding in the two extremes). This difference of "cutting one / cutting both," "one-pointedly turning the back / for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" is easily read as "a rank of capacity" (the bodhisattva can cut both, the two vehicles can only cut one, so the bodhisattva's capacity is higher). But it must be discerned: this is not "a rank of capacity," but "the heteromorphy of what is cut" brought about by "the difference of the path's aim."

Why not a rank of capacity, but the path's differing direction? Because whether or not "the cognitive obstruction is cut" hangs on the difference of "the path's aim," not on the strength or weakness of "capacity." The arhat's path aims at "the self-realized cessation of suffering · exiting birth-and-death · no-more-becoming" (the cessation of the four noble truths) — for this aim, cutting the afflictive obstruction (greed, hatred, delusion · the self-grasping) suffices (the afflictive obstruction obstructs nirvāṇa · cut it and nirvāṇa is realized · birth-and-death exited), the cognitive obstruction (the dharma-grasping · obstructing awakening) not being what the path's aim requires cut (the arhat does not aim at "benefiting beings to the end of future time · accomplishing omniscience," and so need not cut the cognitive obstruction that obstructs awakening). The bodhisattva's path aims at "non-abiding · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time · tending toward omniscience" — for this aim, both obstructions must be cut (not only the afflictive [obstructing nirvāṇa] so as not to abide in birth-and-death, but also the cognitive [obstructing awakening] so as to disclose the dharma-emptiness suchness · give rise to great compassion and wisdom · benefit beings to the end of future time, P09's 3.2). So the difference of "cutting both / cutting one" is the "heteromorphy of what is cut" brought about by "the heteromorphy of the path's aim" (benefiting beings to the end of future time vs. the self-realized cessation of suffering), not the rank of "the bodhisattva's capacity strong · the two vehicles' capacity weak" — the arhat is not "unable to cut the cognitive obstruction," but "his path's aim does not require it cut" (as one going home need not further provision for a long journey, not that he is "unable to provision"). So too with the turning-of-the-basis's "one-pointedly turning the back / for forsaking-and-not-forsaking": the śrāvaka's "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death" is the direction shown by his "exit-aimed" path (single-directional exit · fitting his aim exactly), the bodhisattva's "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" the direction shown by his "altruism-aimed" path (bidirectional non-abiding · fitting his aim exactly) — the two directions heteromorphic, each fitting its path's aim exactly, not the rank of "single-directional is low · bidirectional is high."

So the second layer of discrimination too is a discrimination in kind: the two masteries, by the heteromorphy of "the path's aim" (the self-realized cessation of suffering vs. benefiting beings to the end of future time), show the heteromorphy of "what is cut" (cutting only the afflictive obstruction vs. cutting both) and of "the turning's direction" (one-pointedly turning the back vs. for forsaking-and-not-forsaking). All this is "differing direction," not "rank" — to judge it a rank (the bodhisattva higher for cutting both, the two vehicles lower for cutting one) would fall into the bias of "taking the bodhisattva's path's aim (altruism · cutting both) as the sole measure" (the arhat's path's aim does not require cutting the cognitive obstruction; to fault its "cutting one" as inferior by this measure is to fault this tradition by that tradition's aim), contrary to the middle way of discrimination in kind.

✅ Doctrinally sound: the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions (the two vehicles cut only the afflictive · the bodhisattva cuts both ⁴ · each obstruction obstructing one fruit ⁵) and the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis (the inferior turning "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death" · the vast turning "for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" ⁶) are the "heteromorphy of what is cut · of the turning's direction" brought about by the two masteries' heteromorphy of "the path's aim" (the self-realized cessation of suffering vs. benefiting beings to the end of future time), not "a rank of capacity" — the arhat is not unable to cut the cognitive obstruction, but his path's aim does not require it (as one going home need not provision for a long journey). ⚠️ The adjudications "cutting one / cutting both," "inferior / vast" issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification, marked here as the Yogācāra viewpoint, not used to judge the arhat's own tradition (the liberation of the exhaustion of the outflows · real and not inferior; §V).

3.3 The Difference of Taking-or-Refusing Future Becoming · The Overall Discrimination In-Kind-Not-in-Rank (Carrying Through P01)

The third layer of discrimination is the difference of the two masteries in taking or refusing "future becoming" (the future body of birth-and-death) — and by this, the overall discrimination of the whole division's claim of "in kind, not in rank."

The two masteries' taking or refusing of "future becoming" is the most concrete point of their heteromorphy. The arhat's mastery is signed by "no-more-becoming" (the without-remainder nirvāṇa · the remaining basis too extinguished · receiving no more future body of birth-and-death, ARHAT-P07 having established its sense) — its direction "coming no more" (birth-and-death ended · future becoming forever cut). The bodhisattva's mastery is signed by "to the end of future time" (non-abiding nirvāṇa · benefiting beings to the end of future time) — its direction "ever coming" (not abiding in nirvāṇa · ever manifesting a body to benefit beings to the end of future time, as too in P08's ten masteries' "the mastery of life · sustaining life for inexpressible eons," and P09's Śāstra "abiding at the tenth abode · complete in the buddha-dharmas yet dwelling in the world · not taking nirvāṇa to widely deliver beings"). "No-more-becoming" and "to the end of future time" are the extreme of the two masteries' differing direction in future becoming: the one cutting future becoming and entering quiescence (taking the final rest), the other keeping future becoming and benefiting beings (refusing the final rest). This difference is the most concrete, and also the least to be judged a rank — "no-more-becoming" is, in the arhat's own tradition, the utmost stilling of suffering (all suffering forever quieted · real perfection), "to the end of future time" is, in the bodhisattva's own tradition, the endless unfolding of altruism (great compassion and wisdom · real perfection); the two heteromorphic, each accomplishing its path.

From these three layers (the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas · the differing direction of cutting obstructions and the turning-of-the-basis · the difference of taking-or-refusing future becoming), the overall discrimination of the whole division can be made: the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries are two heteromorphic kinds of mastery, their root difference in "the taking or refusing of the final rest" — the arhat's mastery takes it (the without-remainder · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming), the bodhisattva's refuses it (the non-abiding · to the end of future time · great compassion and wisdom benefiting beings). And this difference is "in kind" (differing in direction · in aim · in work), not "in rank" (not the superior-and-inferior of one ladder). This overall discrimination carries through the division's opening, P01: P01 established that "the bodhisattva's mastery does not succeed the arhat-fruit" — its sense being not "the bodhisattva's mastery continues the arhat's and rises one step higher" (the succession of rank), but "the bodhisattva's mastery is heteromorphic with the arhat's · not successive on one fruit-ladder" (the non-succession in kind). This paper, making this ultimate discrimination after the nine papers, is just the ultimate grounding of P01's claim: the faces of the bodhisattva's mastery (not-taking-the-realization · the two accumulations · the four embraces · the forbearance of non-arising · effortless non-regress · the ten masteries · non-abiding nirvāṇa) run through into one heteromorphic mastery of "refusing its own final rest to benefit beings to the end of future time," which, with the arhat's mastery of "taking its own final rest so that all suffering is forever quieted," stands heteromorphic and side by side, each true in its own right.

To be strictly kept (detailed in §V): this overall discrimination of "in kind, not in rank" does not adjudicate three things — whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate (or must turn back into the buddha-path to be ultimate), the turning of the lesser toward the great (whether and how the two vehicles turn the mind toward the great), and non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four ¹). All three are major choices within Mahāyāna doctrine (the contest of "five natures distinct" vs. "one-vehicle ultimate"), belonging to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal adjudication and the tathāgata division's domain. This paper makes only the "discrimination in kind" (discriminating the two masteries as heteromorphic · each true in its own right), leaving room for the adjudication of these three without overstepping — this paper's discrimination is a "horizontal" discrimination (discriminating the two as heteromorphic and side by side), not a "vertical" adjudication (adjudicating the two as higher-and-lower in succession); the "vertical" adjudication (ultimacy · the turning toward the great · fruit-stage perfection) is left to the author.

✅ Doctrinally sound: the difference of taking-or-refusing future becoming — the arhat's "no-more-becoming" (cutting future becoming and entering quiescence · taking the final rest, ARHAT-P07) vs. the bodhisattva's "to the end of future time" (keeping future becoming and benefiting beings · refusing the final rest, P08/P09) — is the most concrete point of the two masteries' heteromorphy. The overall discrimination (carrying through P01): the two masteries stand heteromorphic and side by side (differing in direction · aim · work), not higher-and-lower on one ladder; this is the ultimate grounding of P01's "the bodhisattva's mastery does not succeed the arhat-fruit · in kind, not in rank." ⚠️ This paper makes only the "horizontal" discrimination in kind, and does not adjudicate the "vertical" matters (the two-vehicle's ultimacy · the turning of the lesser toward the great · "only the buddha has four" fruit-stage perfection) — belonging to the author's doctrinal adjudication and the tathāgata division (§V).

IV. Interdisciplinary Reconciliation

(This paper, per the series' editorial convention, cuts the interdisciplinary section, with the reason given in §VI. The paper's spine is the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha classificatory doctrine of "the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas · the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions · the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis," and the discriminative logic of "in kind, not in rank." Contemporary frames such as "multiple intelligences · no single IQ ladder," "niche differentiation · species each fit to its environment without rank," and "value pluralism · incommensurable goods" might be set against "the two masteries heteromorphic and without common measure," with a real surface resemblance in "heteromorphy · incommensurability · each true in its own right" (especially value pluralism's "incommensurability" against this paper's "no common measure by which to weigh rank"). Yet no three-layered reconciliation free of forced analogy can be sustained, on three counts: that the two masteries' "heteromorphy" is rooted in the Buddhist doctrine of "the obstruction cut · the suchness disclosed · the nirvāṇa-substance" (freed of the afflictive / the cognitive obstruction · without-remainder / non-abiding), not a psychological type of capacity or an ecological niche; that the two masteries' "incommensurability" is not value pluralism's "goods side by side without higher-and-lower" (value pluralism mostly not touching the dimension of "ultimate liberation"), but "the heteromorphy of two ultimate paths of liberation" (taking the rest / refusing the rest · both touching the ultimate of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa), an incommensurability whose depth is far beyond any worldly value-plurality; and that this paper's discrimination of "in kind, not in rank" must still keep an exceedingly subtle boundary within the Mahāyāna classification (the Saṃgraha's "inferior / vast" carrying its own exaltation) and the contested doctrine of "the turning of the lesser toward the great · the two-vehicle's ultimacy" (discriminating kind while suspending rank), a boundary whose handling is internal to Buddhist doctrine, not to be deputed to any worldly pluralist frame. To force the pluralist analogy would make "the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas" a "plurality of lifestyle choices," losing its depth as ultimate paths of liberation and the tension of the Mahāyāna classification. Hence the cut, here stated.)

V. Madhyamaka Correction

This section clears away one large misreading adjacent to the paper's thesis, and strictly marks four boundaries; all four bear on the subtle handling of "discriminating kind while suspending rank," and must be marked with special honesty.

❌ Misreading one: "the ultimate discrimination = judging the bodhisattva's mastery higher than the arhat's, the bodhisattva's mastery surpassing and subsuming the arhat's (an upgrade on one ladder)." This the paper breaks at the outset and reaffirms here, for it is the most easily fallen into (the Mahāyāna canon does abound in words exalting the bodhisattva over the two vehicles). To read "the ultimate discrimination" as "judging rank · arranging a ladder · the bodhisattva upgrading and subsuming the two vehicles" is a root error. First, to judge rank requires a common measure (one ladder), but the two masteries are heteromorphic, tending toward heteromorphic ends (taking the final rest vs. refusing the final rest · all suffering forever quieted vs. benefiting beings to the end of future time), with no common measure to weigh them (3.1) — measure one tradition by the other's, and each appears "lacking," which proves they are not on the same measure (a fish and a bird, one cannot ask which is higher). Second, even within the bodhisattva-exalting Yogācāra classification, the quiescent suchness the two-vehicle's without-remainder station realizes is "no different from the buddha" (³) — which shows that the difference of the two masteries lies not in "the rank of quiescence" (here no difference) but in "whether, beyond quiescence, the function of benefiting others arises" (the heteromorphy of direction); were it a judgment of rank (the two vehicles' realization inferior to the buddha's and the bodhisattva's), the Yogācāra would judge the two vehicles' realized suchness "inferior," yet it adjudicates plainly "no different," ample proof that this is not a judgment of rank. Third, the claim of "surpassing and subsuming" presupposes "the bodhisattva's mastery = the arhat's mastery + altruism" (subsuming the two vehicles and more), yet the two masteries are heteromorphic (the bodhisattva never takes the without-remainder's quiescence · the arhat never tends toward the altruism to the end of future time), not a "more / less" relation of subsumption but a "differing direction" relation of standing side by side (the heteromorphic directions of taking / refusing the rest, not one containing the other). So the ultimate discrimination is not a judgment of rank, not the arranging of a ladder, not an upgrade-subsumption, but the discriminating of the two as heteromorphic and side by side, letting each be true in its own right — just carrying through P01's claim of "not succeeding the arhat-fruit · in kind, not in rank."

⚠️ Correction two: this paper's adjudicative terms (freed of the cognitive / the afflictive obstruction · cutting both / cutting one · the vast / the inferior turning) issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification, not the arhat's own tradition's self-understanding; the arhat's own tradition (Āgama/Kośa) holds the no-comment teaching on the substance of the nirvāṇa-realm, which this paper respects, not forcing a judgment of rank upon the Āgama's own tradition by Yogācāra terms. This must be marked with the strictest honesty; it is the locus of the boundary between "discrimination in kind" and "Mahāyāna doctrinal classification." The adjudicative terms this paper uses — non-abiding / without-remainder nirvāṇa, freed of the cognitive / the afflictive obstruction, the two vehicles cut only the afflictive / the bodhisattva cuts both, the inferior / the vast turning — all issue from the systems of doctrinal classification of the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra (the Cheng weishi lun) and the Saṃgraha (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha). This system carries its Mahāyāna-standpoint classificatory cast (as the Saṃgraha names the śrāvaka's turning "inferior," the Yogācāra marks the two vehicles' limit by "the cognitive obstruction uncut"). This paper, in taking this system's adjudications, takes their doctrinal function of marking the two masteries' heteromorphy (differing in their nirvāṇa · in what they cut · in the direction of their turning), and not their Mahāyāna-standpoint evaluative ranking. Why keep this boundary? Because the arhat's mastery must be presented on its own terms (ARHAT-P07's boundary): in the Āgama/Kośa's own tradition, the arhat's "exhaustion of the outflows" (greed, hatred, delusion forever ended) is itself the ultimate liberation, "no-more-becoming" is itself the utmost stilling of suffering, and the Āgama's own tradition does not take "the cognitive obstruction uncut" as a lack in the arhat ("the cognitive obstruction" being a Mahāyāna-Yogācāra construct · the Āgama has no such construct); and the Āgama/Kośa hold the no-comment teaching on "the substance of the nirvāṇa-realm" and "whether the tathāgata exists after death" (the fourteen undeclared · the set-aside response · the Parable of the Arrow, treated in full in ARHAT-P07, not adjudicating the substance of the nirvāṇa-realm as existent or non-existent). So were this paper, by the Yogācāra terms "freed of the cognitive obstruction · cutting both," to judge the arhat's mastery "inferior to" or "falling short of" the bodhisattva's outright, that would be to impose the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra measure of doctrinal classification upon the Āgama's own tradition, which holds the no-comment teaching — both contrary to the Āgama's own boundary (the Āgama does not grant the faulting of its exhaustion-of-outflows by "the cognitive obstruction") and contrary to P01's claim that "the arhat's mastery is real and not inferior." So this paper's discrimination, only within "the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra viewpoint of discrimination," marks the two masteries' heteromorphy (in kind), and suspends the judgment of "ranking the arhat's own tradition by the Yogācāra measure" — toward the arhat's own tradition (Āgama/Kośa), this paper respects its boundary of no-comment, not adjudicating the substance of its nirvāṇa-realm, not adjudicating the rank of its liberation by the exhaustion of the outflows.

⚠️ Correction three: this paper does not adjudicate "the turning of the lesser toward the great" or "whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate"; this belongs to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal choice. This is the limit of this paper's discrimination, to be strictly kept. "Whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is itself ultimate" (or must turn the mind toward the great, entering the buddha-path, to be ultimate) and "the turning of the lesser toward the great" (whether and how the two vehicles turn the lesser toward the great) is a major contested question within Mahāyāna doctrine: the Dharma-character Yogācāra school holds "the five natures distinct" (the śrāvaka of fixed nature, entering the without-remainder nirvāṇa, is ultimate · not turning toward the buddha-path), while the one-vehicle schools, Tiantai and Huayan, hold "gathering the three into one · the two-vehicle's ultimacy must turn back into the one buddha-vehicle" (the without-remainder nirvāṇa not ultimate · turning back in the end) — the two systems' readings diverge widely, a root choice of doctrinal classification. This paper's "discrimination in kind" is a "horizontal" discrimination (discriminating the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries as two heteromorphic kinds · each true in its own right · side by side), and does not touch the "vertical" adjudication (not adjudicating whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder is ultimate · not adjudicating whether and how the lesser turns toward the great). Why suspend it? Because the "vertical" adjudication requires choosing a classificatory standpoint (five natures distinct, or one-vehicle ultimate), and this choice belongs to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal choice, not something this paper's "discrimination in kind" can encompass (this paper's discrimination in kind holds on both the five-natures-distinct and the one-vehicle-ultimate systems — both grant "the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries are heteromorphic," differing only in the "vertical" judgment of "whether the two vehicles must turn back in the end"). So this paper keeps the "horizontal" discrimination, leaving the "vertical" adjudication (ultimacy · the turning toward the great) to the author.

⚠️ Correction four: non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection "only the buddha has four" belongs to the tathāgata division and the author; this paper discriminates only the causal-stage bodhisattva's mastery and the arhat's. This takes up P09's boundary. The Cheng weishi lun states plainly "only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four" (¹) — non-abiding nirvāṇa's perfect fruit-stage form is the buddha's alone. The "bodhisattva's mastery" this paper discriminates is the causal-stage orientation toward non-abiding nirvāṇa (the bodhisattva, from the grounds and even from the arising of the mind, orienting toward and turning the basis into the mark of non-abiding nirvāṇa, P09's 3.1); its fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four) belongs to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication. So this paper's discrimination is between "the causal-stage bodhisattva's mastery (orienting toward non-abiding)" and "the arhat's mastery (without-remainder)," and does not touch the discrimination of "the fruit-stage-perfect non-abiding nirvāṇa (the buddha's alone)" and the arhat's mastery (which awaits the tathāgata division). This paper does not, by "the fruit-stage perfection only the buddha has four," raise the bodhisattva's mastery above the arhat's (the fruit-stage perfection belongs to the buddha · not the bodhisattva's causal stage; to judge the arhat by the buddha-fruit is not the business of this paper's causal-stage discrimination).

VI. Conclusion

Restatement in essence. The ultimate discrimination of the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries is a discrimination in kind, not a discrimination of rank. On the canon, the Cheng weishi lun's four-nirvāṇa schema sets out side by side the without-remainder nirvāṇa (freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming) and the non-abiding nirvāṇa (freed of the cognitive obstruction · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time), and adjudicates the two-vehicle's without-remainder station "no different from the buddha, but without the work of awakening and benefiting others" (the difference not in the rank of quiescence · but in whether, beyond quiescence, the function of benefiting others arises); it further adjudicates "the two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction, the bodhisattva cuts both" (each obstruction obstructing one fruit · the afflictive obstructs nirvāṇa · the cognitive obstructs awakening). The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha adjudicates the bodhisattva's "vast turning · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking" distinct from the śrāvaka's "inferior turning · one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death." On doctrine, three layers of discrimination, all in kind and not in rank: the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas (taking the final rest vs. refusing the final rest · no common measure by which to weigh rank · "no different from the buddha but without the work of benefiting others" proving the difference is not in the rank of quiescence, 3.1); the differing direction of cutting obstructions and the turning-of-the-basis (the heteromorphy of what is cut and of the turning's direction brought about by the heteromorphy of the path's aim [the self-realized cessation of suffering vs. benefiting beings to the end of future time] · not a rank of capacity, 3.2); the difference of taking-or-refusing future becoming (no-more-becoming vs. to the end of future time · carrying through P01's overall discrimination of "not succeeding · in kind, not in rank," 3.3). Four boundaries are to be strictly kept (§V): discrimination is not a judgment of rank (no common measure · "no different from the buddha"); the adjudicative terms issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha classification while the arhat is presented on its own terms (the Āgama's no-comment teaching · real and not inferior · not forced); the turning of the lesser toward the great and the two-vehicle's ultimacy are not adjudicated (the author's doctrinal choice); "only the buddha has four" fruit-stage perfection belongs to the tathāgata division and the author.

Guidance for practice. Here the practitioner should put away one pride, give rise to one reverence, be clear about one direction. The pride to put away: the practitioner of the Mahāyāna should not, because "the bodhisattva both benefits others · the two vehicles deliver only themselves," give rise to the pride of "the Mahāyāna high · the lesser vehicle low" — the two masteries are heteromorphic and each true in its own right; to scorn the two vehicles is to be blind both to the Yogācāra's plain adjudication that "the two vehicles' realization is no different from the buddha" and to the middle way of "heteromorphy without common measure," only feeding self-conceit. The reverence to give rise to: toward the arhat's mastery (taking the final rest · all suffering forever quieted · no-more-becoming), give rise to a real reverence — its "one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death · forever cutting future becoming" is, in the arhat's own tradition, the utmost stilling of suffering, the perfect resolution of its path, real and not inferior (the arhat's quiescence is "no different from the buddha"); to revere it is not to fall into the bias of exalting oneself and disparaging others. The direction to be clear about: the practitioner of the bodhisattva path should be clear that the direction chosen is the direction of "refusing the final rest · benefiting beings to the end of future time" (non-abiding) — this direction is not a direction "higher than the arhat's" but a direction "other than the arhat's" (a choice in kind); clear about this, one treads the bodhisattva path not "to be higher than the two vehicles" (to seek the higher is self-conceit · not the awakening-mind) but "by the original vow and great compassion · unable to bear taking the rest and forsaking beings" (the natural bent of the direction of altruism to the end of future time). In sum: to discriminate the two masteries' kind is not to rank them so as to weight oneself, but to make each direction clear, revere each as true, and let each tread its own path.

Taking up and opening (the close of the whole division). As the close of the ten papers of The Bodhisattva's Mastery (the load-bearing close), this paper gathers the whole division into one overall discrimination. Looking back over the ten: P01 established that the bodhisattva's mastery is signed by "not-taking-the-realization · not succeeding the arhat-fruit · in kind, not in rank" (the whole division's keynote); P02 its boundless two accumulations; P03/P04 its ten grounds and four added perfections; P05 the four embraces, altruism is mastery (the śrāvaka cannot see); P06 the cognitive signature of the forbearance of non-arising; P07 effortless non-regress; P08 the eighth ground's ten masteries; P09 its ultimate core — non-abiding nirvāṇa (refusing the final rest · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time); this P10, taking up P09's non-abiding nirvāṇa, makes the ultimate discrimination of the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries, carrying through P01's keynote: the faces of the bodhisattva's mastery (not-taking-the-realization · the two accumulations · the four embraces · the forbearance of non-arising · effortless non-regress · the ten masteries · non-abiding nirvāṇa) run through into one heteromorphic mastery of "refusing its own final rest to benefit beings to the end of future time," which, with the arhat's mastery of "taking its own final rest so that all suffering is forever quieted," stands heteromorphic and side by side, each true in its own right — and the keynote P01 set out at the opening, "the bodhisattva's mastery does not succeed the arhat-fruit · in kind, not in rank," is here ultimately grounded. The division's central claim is here complete: the bodhisattva's mastery is a freedom heteromorphic with the arhat's (refusing the rest · benefiting others · non-abiding), not a freedom higher than the arhat's (not an upgrade on one ladder). Opening forward: the three things this paper strictly keeps and does not adjudicate — first, the discrimination of non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four) and the arhat's mastery, and its reconciliation with the bodhisattva's causal-stage non-abiding, belongs to the tathāgata division and the author's adjudication; second, the "vertical" judgment of the turning of the lesser toward the great · whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate belongs to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal choice (five natures distinct vs. one-vehicle ultimate); third, the full doctrine of the arhat's mastery (without-remainder · no-more-becoming · the no-comment teaching) is established in this axis's The Arhat's Mastery division (ARHAT-P07 and others), this paper making only a cross-discrimination, its full presentation on its own terms awaiting that division. As for the Realization axis: this paper's ultimate discrimination (the bodhisattva's mastery vs. the arhat's) correlates thematically with the ends of the two paths walked in the Realization axis's bodhi-path and arhat-path closing papers — the Realization axis walks the two paths (the bodhisattva path's ten grounds toward the buddha-fruit · the śrāvaka path's four fruits toward the without-remainder), the Attainment axis (this paper) reads the discrimination of the two heteromorphic masteries those two paths' ends accomplish; the seam's doctrine is the author's, and this paper does not speak for the Realization axis.

Open questions. First, the paper cuts §IV (the two masteries' heteromorphy is only superficially like multiple intelligences / niche differentiation / value pluralism), as above. Second, this paper's adjudicative terms issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha classification, marked as "the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra viewpoint of discrimination," suspending the judgment of "ranking the arhat's own tradition by the Yogācāra measure"; the full self-understanding of the arhat's own tradition (the Āgama/Kośa no-comment teaching), and the reconciliation of the Yogācāra classification with the Āgama's own tradition, this paper does not cover, awaiting another treatment. Third, the "vertical" adjudication — whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate · the turning of the lesser toward the great · non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four) — this paper does not adjudicate, belonging to the author's doctrinal choice and the tathāgata division. Fourth, this paper's discrimination is limited to "the causal-stage bodhisattva's mastery (orienting toward non-abiding)" and "the arhat's mastery (without-remainder)"; the discrimination of "the fruit-stage-perfect non-abiding nirvāṇa (the buddha's alone)" and the arhat's mastery awaits the tathāgata division. Fifth, this paper takes the Yogācāra/Saṃgraha as the canonical system of the discrimination, and does not take the Madhyamaka stream's nirvāṇa-doctrine (e.g., the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's "nirvāṇa-examination": nirvāṇa and the world, not the slightest difference between them) to collate the account of the two nirvāṇas' heteromorphy; should a Madhyamaka collation be required (the Madhyamaka may take a different approach to "the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas"), a separate verification of the Madhyamaka nirvāṇa-doctrine is needed. Sixth, the Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa / nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML, marked only by standard equivalents, Sanskrit attestation awaiting separate consultation.

Notes

References

Primary Buddhist Sources

• Cheng weishi lun (成唯識論). By Dharmapāla et al., trans. Xuanzang. T31, no. 1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗. Fasc. 9 (each obstruction obstructing one fruit · the two vehicles cut only the afflictive obstruction, the bodhisattva cuts both); fasc. 10 (the four-nirvāṇa schema's without-remainder and non-abiding · only the buddha has four · the two-vehicle's without-remainder station "no different from the buddha but without the work of benefiting others").
• Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (攝大乘論). By Asaṅga, trans. Paramārtha. T31, no. 1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗. Fasc. 3, "On the Excellent Mark of the Quiescence That Is the Fruit of Training" (the inferior and the vast turning · the differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis).
• [Arhat's side · cross-reference, not re-copied] The canonical basis for the without-remainder nirvāṇa · no-more-becoming · the no-comment teaching — the Saṃyukta-āgama (self-attestation · no-more-becoming · the Anurādha-sūtra), the Abhidharmakośa (the set-aside response), the Parable of the Arrow (the Madhyama-āgama · the fourteen undeclared) — is established in this axis's The Arhat's Mastery division, ARHAT-P07, "The Doctrine of No-More-Becoming"; this paper makes only a cross-discrimination, not re-copying its CBETA loci, keeping the boundary of "the arhat presented on its own terms" (§V Correction two).

Modern Scholarship

(This paper cites no modern scholarship; its argument rests entirely on the Buddhist canon's Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification, in the open-source spirit of "returning to the source." The interdisciplinary section having been cut, there is no associated modern literature. This paper's adjudicative terms issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha, marked as "the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra viewpoint of discrimination" while suspending a judgment of rank upon the Āgama's own tradition, no modern comparative study of doctrinal classification pre-cited; the contested doctrine of "the turning of the lesser toward the great · the two-vehicle's ultimacy" [five natures distinct vs. one-vehicle ultimate] belongs to the author's adjudication, no relevant adjudication pre-cited; non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection [only the buddha has four] belongs to the tathāgata division, not pre-cited. The Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa / nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML, marked by standard equivalents.)

Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Citation	Source	CBETA id
The heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas (without-remainder, freed of the afflictive obstruction, all suffering forever quieted · non-abiding, freed of the cognitive obstruction, benefiting beings to the end of future time)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 10	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b07
The distribution of the four nirvāṇas (only the buddha has four · non-abiding's fruit-stage perfection the buddha's alone)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 10	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b19
Each obstruction obstructing one fruit (the afflictive obstructs nirvāṇa · the cognitive obstructs awakening)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 9	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0048c06
The vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions (the two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction, the bodhisattva cuts both)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 9	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0048c28
The sameness and difference of the two-vehicle's without-remainder station and the buddha (no different from the buddha · but without the work of benefiting others)	Cheng weishi lun, fasc. 10	T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055c11
The differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis (the inferior turning, one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death · the vast turning, for forsaking-and-not-forsaking)	Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, fasc. 3, Quiescence-Fruit	T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129b11

Series Cross-Reference Index

• BODHI-P01, "The Bodhisattva's Mastery Does Not Succeed the Arhat-Fruit" (the whole division's keynote · carried through by this paper): P01 established that the bodhisattva's mastery is signed by "not-taking-the-realization · not succeeding the arhat-fruit · in kind, not in rank"; as the close, this paper, by three layers of discrimination in kind (the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas · the differing direction of cutting obstructions and the turning-of-the-basis · the difference of taking-or-refusing future becoming), ultimately grounds P01's keynote — the bodhisattva's and the arhat's masteries stand heteromorphic and side by side, each true in its own right, not higher-and-lower on one ladder.
• BODHI-P09, "The Meaning of Non-Abiding Nirvāṇa" (taken up directly by this paper): P09 established the ultimate core of the bodhisattva's mastery — non-abiding nirvāṇa (freed of the cognitive obstruction · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time · refusing the final rest); this paper takes it up, taking non-abiding nirvāṇa as the one side of the bodhisattva's mastery, to make the ultimate discrimination with the arhat's mastery (the without-remainder nirvāṇa). This paper's ²³⁶ share their source with P09's ²¹³⁶ (the Yogācāra four nirvāṇas · "no different from the buddha" · the turning of the basis), P09 treating their full adjudication, this paper taking their discriminative sense.
• BODHI-P05, "The Four Embraces: Altruism Is Mastery", BODHI-P07 / P08: P05's "altruism is mastery · the śrāvaka cannot see," P07/P08's "not resting in quiescence · manifesting a body to the end of future time to benefit beings," are all faces of the one side of this paper's "the bodhisattva's mastery refusing the final rest · benefiting beings to the end of future time"; this paper gathers them as the heteromorphic features of the bodhisattva's mastery (discriminated against the arhat's "taking the rest · no-more-becoming").
• ★ The Arhat's Mastery ARHAT-P07, "The Doctrine of No-More-Becoming" (Attainment axis, Div 1 · the contrast-side of this paper's discrimination): the full doctrine of the arhat's side — the without-remainder nirvāṇa · no-more-becoming · the no-comment teaching (the Saṃyukta-āgama's self-attestation / Anurādha-sūtra · the Kośa's set-aside response · the Parable of the Arrow's fourteen undeclared) — is established there; this paper makes only a cross-discrimination (taking "no-more-becoming · all suffering forever quieted · taking the final rest" against the bodhisattva's "to the end of future time · refusing the final rest"), not re-copying its loci, and respecting its boundary of "presented on its own terms · the no-comment teaching · real and not inferior" (§V Correction two).
• ★ This axis's tathāgata division (forthcoming division · the author's adjudication): the discrimination of non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four ¹) and the arhat's mastery, and its reconciliation with the bodhisattva's causal-stage non-abiding, belongs to the tathāgata division and the author's (Shi Huijing's) adjudication; this paper discriminates only the causal-stage bodhisattva's mastery and the arhat's (§V Correction four).
• ★ The author's doctrinal adjudication (the turning of the lesser toward the great · the two-vehicle's ultimacy) (the "vertical" judgment · the author's): the "vertical" adjudication of whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate · the turning of the lesser toward the great (the contest of five natures distinct vs. one-vehicle ultimate) belongs to the author's (Shi Huijing's) doctrinal choice; this paper makes only the "horizontal" discrimination in kind, suspending the "vertical" adjudication (§V Correction three).
• ★ Realization-axis bodhi-path / arhat-path closing papers (parallel · thematically related): the Realization axis walks the two paths (the bodhisattva path's ten grounds toward the buddha-fruit · the śrāvaka path's four fruits toward the without-remainder), the Attainment axis (this paper) reads the discrimination of the two heteromorphic masteries those two paths' ends accomplish; the seam's doctrine is the author's, and this paper does not speak for the Realization axis.

---

Paper: BODHI-P10 · 終極分判 · The Bodhisattva's Mastery · Part 6 · The Refused Rest Author: 釋慧鏡 (Shi Huijing) · Project: 指月 / Pointing-at-the-Moon · Series: The Attainment Signatures（證 自在簽名） License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 CBETA collation: 全文引用均依 CBETA 電子佛典核校（《成唯識論》T1585、《攝大乘論》T1593）。本篇為大乘分區，無巴利雙軌義務；引文均依 CBETA XML 實核（含 ⁴ 欄位更正：「二乘但能斷煩惱障，菩薩俱斷」為卷九 0048c28，原檢索記 0048c27，已正）。Four boundaries (see §V): first, the "ultimate discrimination" discriminates the two masteries' kind, not their rank (no common measure · "no different from the buddha" proving the difference is not in the rank of quiescence). Second, this paper's adjudicative terms (freed of the cognitive / the afflictive obstruction · cutting both / cutting one · the vast / the inferior turning) issue from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra/Saṃgraha system of doctrinal classification, marked as "the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra viewpoint of discrimination," not the arhat's own tradition's (Āgama/Kośa · the no-comment teaching) self-understanding; this paper respects the arhat's own tradition's boundary of no-comment, not forcing a judgment of rank upon the substance of its nirvāṇa-realm by Yogācāra terms (the arhat's mastery real and not inferior). Third, this paper does not adjudicate the turning of the lesser toward the great or whether the two-vehicle's without-remainder nirvāṇa is ultimate (the "vertical" judgment · the author's doctrinal choice · five natures distinct vs. one-vehicle ultimate). Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa's fruit-stage perfection (only the buddha has four) belongs to the tathāgata division and the author; this paper discriminates only the causal-stage bodhisattva's mastery. This paper is the load-bearing close of the ten papers of The Bodhisattva's Mastery, gathering the whole division and carrying through P01's keynote of "in kind, not in rank." The Sanskrit correspondences of apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa / nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa are not directly verified in the Chinese-translation XML, marked by standard equivalents. Repository: https://github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/attainment-signatures

Footnotes

1. 《成唯識論》卷第十，T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b19. "All beings have the first; the two-vehicle adepts may have the first three; only our World-Honored One may be said to have all four." The distribution of the four nirvāṇas: only the buddha has four (non-abiding nirvāṇa's perfect fruit-stage form is the buddha's alone). The locus of this paper's Correction four: the fruit-stage perfection belongs to the tathāgata division and the author; this paper discriminates only the causal-stage bodhisattva's mastery. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. 《成唯識論》卷第十，T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055b07. By Dharmapāla et al., trans. Xuanzang. "Third, nirvāṇa without remainder — the suchness freed of the suffering of birth-and-death, where, the afflictions being ended, the remaining basis too is extinguished and all suffering forever quieted, hence called nirvāṇa. Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa — the suchness freed of the cognitive obstruction, ever assisted by great compassion and wisdom, whereby it abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa, benefiting beings to the end of future time, functioning yet ever quiescent, hence called nirvāṇa." The root of the heteromorphy of the two nirvāṇas: the without-remainder (freed of the afflictive obstruction · all suffering forever quieted · the remaining basis too extinguished) vs. the non-abiding (freed of the cognitive obstruction · great compassion and wisdom · benefiting beings to the end of future time · functioning yet ever quiescent). CBETA-verified. (The full schema of the four nirvāṇas is treated in BODHI-P09 ².) ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. 《成唯識論》卷第十，T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0055c11. "In this station there is only the pure suchness, free of marks, profoundly tranquil, quiescent and at ease; on this account it is said to be no different from the buddha; but because it is without the work of awakening and benefiting others, it is further said to differ from the buddha." The pivot of the sameness and difference of the two-vehicle's without-remainder station and the buddha: as to the quiescent suchness, "no different from the buddha" (the difference not in the rank of quiescence); as to the work of awakening and benefiting others, "differing from the buddha" (the difference in whether, beyond quiescence, the function of benefiting others arises) — the Yogācāra's own attestation that the discrimination is not of rank (in quiescence no difference) but of kind (in work, difference). ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

4. 《成唯識論》卷第九，T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0048c28. "The two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction; the bodhisattva cuts both." The plain adjudication of the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions: the two vehicles cut only the afflictive obstruction (gaining nirvāṇa · liberation from birth-and-death), the bodhisattva cuts both (tending toward non-abiding and awakening). (Note: this CBETA_id's register, recorded in the earlier source-gathering pass as 0048c27, on verification should be 0048c28 [the sentence "the two vehicles can cut only the afflictive obstruction, the bodhisattva cuts both" begins at c28], corrected here.) This adjudication issues from the Mahāyāna-Yogācāra classification, marked here as the Yogācāra viewpoint, not used to judge the arhat's own tradition "inferior" by "cutting only one" (§V, Correction two). ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. 《成唯識論》卷第九，T31n1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0048c06. "The afflictive obstruction … able to obstruct nirvāṇa, is named the afflictive obstruction. The cognitive obstruction … able to obstruct awakening, is named the cognitive obstruction." Each obstruction obstructs one fruit: the afflictive obstructs nirvāṇa · the cognitive obstructs awakening. Joined with ⁴ it marks the discriminative sense of the vehicle-distinction of cutting obstructions (the two vehicles cut only the afflictive and so gain only nirvāṇa · the bodhisattva cuts both and so tends toward awakening too). ↩ ↩²

6. 《攝大乘論》卷下〈學果寂滅勝相品第九〉，T31n1593《攝大乘論》Mahāyāna-saṃgrahaT31, No. 1593View on CBETA online reader ↗_p0129b11. By Asaṅga, trans. Paramārtha. "Fifth, the inferior turning: because the śrāvaka comprehends the selflessness of persons, and one-pointedly turns his back on birth-and-death, for forever forsaking birth-and-death. Sixth, the vast turning: because the bodhisattva comprehends the selflessness of dharmas, contemplating therein the merit of quiescence, for forsaking-and-not-forsaking." The differing direction of the turning-of-the-basis: the inferior turning (śrāvaka · one-pointedly turning the back on birth-and-death · single-directional exit) vs. the vast turning (bodhisattva · for forsaking-and-not-forsaking · bidirectional non-abiding). This paper takes its doctrinal core of "the difference of direction," marking the Saṃgraha's evaluative terms "inferior / vast" as the Mahāyāna-Saṃgraha viewpoint of classification (§V Correction two, 2.3). (The full adjudication of the turning of the basis is treated in BODHI-P09 ³⁶.) ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵