解脫道論 次第分諦之難與一剎那四諦

12-09 established one sentence: one knowledge, one instant, distinguishing the four truths as neither first nor later. Someone objects. This passage is that debate.

Its opening is plain: “In this matter, a teacher says: cultivate the path sequentially, abandon the defilements sequentially, and distinguish the truths sequentially.” The Chinese expression 有師說 (“a teacher says”) occurs only once in the treatise. The author gives neither this teacher’s name nor the title of a work, and he does not call the position an “alternate explanation.”

He then presents a succession of faults to refute it.

One fact on the surface of the writing is worth carrying away: the fault numbers begin with “the second fault.” Second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh—six numbers. Yet before the second fault stands one complete argument. That is the first fault, but it bears no number.

There are therefore seven faults, not six.

A tool can be carried away from this place: when a list is numbered, first count where the numbers begin and end, then check whether an item without a number stands beside them. Counting only the numbered items loses one. Reading only by the numbers makes it seem that the author omitted a “first.” Both misreadings come from the same thing: failing first to count numbered and unnumbered items separately.

The first four faults explicitly use the same paired pattern: one branch says “if … is acceptable,” another “if this is not acceptable.” Those two branches close in and leave the other position nowhere to go. The fifth through seventh retain the acceptable premise but do not repeat an explicit “if this is not acceptable” branch.

The backbone of the debate is one expression. The Chinese 不相應 (“does not correspond”) occurs twenty-three times in the treatise, eleven in this passage, nearly half. The author does not say the other side is “wrong.” He says its statements “do not correspond”—not that they fail to correspond with words of the Buddha, but that they fail to correspond with one another. All seven faults refute mismatches within the other side’s own words.

There is one place to pause for oneself. The first six faults contain not one simile. At the seventh, a simile of 菴婆 fruits suddenly appears: many things causing one fruit to arise are like many 菴婆 fruits causing one fruit to be born. The Chinese expression 菴婆 occurs only once in the treatise.

Why does only this fault close with a simile? What can be checked is this: both the sixth and seventh faults reason with twelve, eight, and four, but the final fault alone turns those numbers into a many-to-one objection and closes with a simile. This edition transcribes without explaining why.

The final question compresses the objection into two branches, while the author’s answer has only three sentences: one sentence blocks one branch, another blocks the other, and the last gives the reason—“because they were distinguished beforehand.”

Seven faults are used to refute the other teacher; only three sentences are used in the author’s own answer. No simile is offered, no authority cited, and no new group of terms established.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Objection to Sequentially Distinguishing the Truths and the Four Truths in One Instant · Doorway · Summer 2026

First Question: A Teacher Speaks of Sequence

Question: In this matter, a teacher says: cultivate the path sequentially, abandon the defilements sequentially, and distinguish the truths sequentially.

Answer: The fruit is realized either with twelve, with eight, or with four path knowledges.

Here the base text reads “twelve,” while the Song and Yuan witnesses read the Chinese graph for “one.” It is transcribed as it stands, and the body follows the base text.

Second Question: How Does This View Fail to Correspond?

Question: How does this view fail to correspond here?

Answer:

First Fault (This Fault Is Unnumbered)

If practice proceeds sequentially and the defilements are abandoned sequentially, realization therefore proceeds sequentially. If realizing the fruit sequentially in this way is acceptable because it corresponds with the path and fruit—then, if this is acceptable, does one fruit of stream-entry result? If this is not acceptable, the same applies to cultivating the path sequentially and abandoning the defilements sequentially.

Of the seven faults, only the first does not bear the number “first fault”; beginning with the second, each is numbered. It is transcribed as it stands.

Second Fault

Furthermore, the second fault: suppose it is acceptable that by seeing suffering, the defilements abandoned through seeing suffering are extinguished and abandoned. Then suffering has already been seen, those defilements have already been abandoned, and a four-part fruit of stream-entry is realized. This realization ought to be acceptable, because the means have been accomplished.

If this is acceptable, one realizes a four-part stream-enterer: a four-part seven-birth person, a four-part family-to-family person, a four-part one-birth person, and a four-part person abiding in the fruit. This does not correspond here. If this is not acceptable, then are the defilements abandoned through seeing suffering abandoned by seeing suffering? This does not correspond.

Third Fault

Furthermore, the third fault: if it is accepted that, by seeing suffering, the defilements abandoned through seeing suffering are abandoned, then through presently seeing suffering it should be acceptable that a four-part person abiding in the stream-entry path, a four-part faith-follower, and a four-part Dhamma-follower are formed, although the remaining three truths have not been seen.

If what is accepted is abiding in four stream-entry paths, becoming four faith-followers, and becoming four Dhamma-followers, this does not correspond here. If this is not acceptable, then the defilements abandoned through seeing suffering are abandoned by seeing suffering.

Fourth Fault

Furthermore, the fourth fault also does not correspond. Suppose it is acceptable that presently seeing the path makes one directed toward the fruit, and through seeing the path one becomes established in the fruit. Then presently seeing suffering should likewise make one directed toward the fruit, and through seeing it one should become established in the fruit, because what is seen is one kind. If this is so, an acceptable directed person and one established in the fruit produce many faults; this does not correspond here. If this is not acceptable, then presently seeing the path accomplishes realization, and through seeing the path one becomes established in the fruit—this too does not correspond.

Fifth Fault

Furthermore, the fifth fault: if by seeing the path one realizes the fruit, and it is acceptable that one realizes the fruit before seeing suffering, arising, and cessation, then seeing suffering, seeing arising, and seeing the cessation of suffering are without meaning.

Sixth Fault

Furthermore, the sixth fault: suppose it is acceptable that the fruit of stream-entry is realized with twelve, with eight, or with four path knowledges. Then through this realization, either twelve, eight, or four fruits of stream-entry ought to be acceptable. Thus there comes to be path knowledge without fruit. If the ground of such acceptability constitutes a fault, this does not correspond here. If this is acceptable, then is the fruit of stream-entry realized with twelve, with eight, or with four path knowledges? This too does not correspond.

Seventh Fault

Furthermore, the seventh fault: if it is acceptable that twelve, eight, or four path knowledges cause one fruit of stream-entry to arise, this too does not correspond. Many things causing one fruit to arise are like many 菴婆 fruits causing one fruit to be born.

Third Question: The Objection of Four Objects of Appropriation by Seeing in One Knowledge and One Instant

Question: If, with one knowledge in one instant and without before or after (無前無後), the four truths are distinguished, then one knowledge ought to become four objects of appropriation by seeing. If seeing suffering constitutes seeing the four truths, the four truths become the truth of suffering. If neither of these two meanings obtains, then “distinguishing the four truths in one instant, with one knowledge and without before or after” does not correspond.

Answer: It is not that one knowledge becomes four objects of appropriation by seeing, nor that the four truths become the truth of suffering. The meditator proceeds only from the four truths at the outset: diverse characteristics and one characteristic, because they were distinguished beforehand.

This answer contains only three sentences, while the objection above it has two branches. It is transcribed as it stands.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Objection to Sequentially Distinguishing the Truths and the Four Truths in One Instant · Vernacular · Summer 2026

12-09 established a statement: one knowledge, one instant, distinguishing the four truths as neither first nor later. Someone objects. This passage is that debate.

Let the central observation be stated first: the author gives seven consecutive faults to refute the other teacher’s position, yet their numbering begins with “the second fault.” The first fault is unnumbered and begins directly, “If practice proceeds sequentially.” Seven faults, six of them numbered.

Another Teacher Is Cited, but Neither Name nor Source Is Given

The opening sentence is plain: “Question: In this matter, a teacher says: cultivate the path sequentially, abandon the defilements sequentially, and distinguish the truths sequentially” 〔T32 458c13–14〕.

The Chinese expression 有師說 (“a teacher says”) occurs only once in the entire treatise.

The author gives neither the teacher’s name nor the title of a work. More notably, he does not call the position an “alternate explanation.” Earlier alternate explanations in the treatise carry separate markers; here he says only “a teacher says.”

The answer is also one sentence: “Answer: The fruit is realized either with twelve, with eight, or with four path knowledges” 〔T32 458c14–15〕. The three options in the other teacher’s position are first set out; only afterward are they refuted one by one.

(A critical note occurs here: the base reads “with twelve,” while the Song and Yuan witnesses read the graph for “one.” Reading “twelve” agrees with “either twelve, eight, or four” in the sixth and seventh faults below. Both are recorded without adjudication, and the body follows the base text.)

Reading Method: With a Numbered List, First Ask Where Its Numbering Begins

The second question is the body of the passage: “Question: How does this view fail to correspond here? Answer: If practice proceeds sequentially and the defilements are abandoned sequentially, realization therefore proceeds sequentially” 〔T32 458c15–16〕.

The reasoning of this fault is: if practice proceeds sequentially and the defilements are abandoned sequentially, realization therefore proceeds sequentially. If realizing the fruit in sequence is acceptable, “then does one fruit of stream-entry result?” 〔T32 458c17–18〕. If it is not acceptable, the preceding assertion likewise cannot stand.

The two branches close in on the position, leaving it no way forward on either side. And this form holds only for the first four faults: 若如是不可樂 occurs four times in the passage 〔T32 458c18·458c24·459a01·459a05〕, all of them in faults one through four. The fifth and the seventh raise only the acceptable branch, and the sixth, though it has two branches, has both of them read “acceptable” 〔T32 459a12·459a13〕. Seven faults are headed, and the seven are not of one form; recorded as it stands, not regularized.

Only then does a number appear: “Furthermore, the second fault: suppose it is acceptable that by seeing suffering, the defilements abandoned through seeing suffering are extinguished and abandoned” 〔T32 458c19–20〕. Below come “Furthermore, the third fault” 〔T32 458c25–26〕, “Furthermore, the fourth fault also does not correspond” 〔T32 459a02〕, “Furthermore, the fifth fault” 〔T32 459a07〕, “Furthermore, the sixth fault” 〔T32 459a09〕, and “Furthermore, the seventh fault” 〔T32 459a15〕. The numbering runs all the way to seven.

The reading method furnished by the passage is here: when a list is numbered, first count where its numbers begin and end, then check whether an item without a number stands beside them.

Following that method: the numbers run from two through seven, making six numbered items; before the second fault stands a complete argument. That is the first fault, but it bears no number. There are therefore seven faults, not six.

Counting only the numbered items loses the first. Reading only by the numbers makes it seem that the author omitted a “first fault.” Both misreadings arise from the same failure: not counting the numbered and unnumbered items separately first.

This edition transcribes the text without supplying the missing number.

What Each of the Seven Faults Refutes

The seven faults are not perfectly uniform in form, and each refutes a different point. They are worth following in sequence.

The first fault (unnumbered) refutes “sequence” itself. If practice proceeds sequentially, the defilements are abandoned sequentially, and realization therefore proceeds sequentially, and if realizing the fruit sequentially is acceptable—then does the fruit of stream-entry become only one 〔T32 458c17–18〕? Conversely, if that is unacceptable, the premise cannot stand either. One fruit does not correspond to the many sequential stages.

The second fault refutes “four parts.” If it is acceptable that by seeing suffering, the defilements abandoned through seeing suffering are extinguished and abandoned, then one who has seen suffering has already realized a four-part fruit of stream-entry 〔T32 458c19–20〕. Under the other side’s division, there must then be “a four-part seven-birth person, a four-part family-to-family person, a four-part one-birth person, and a four-part person abiding in the fruit.” Each of the stream-enterer’s four types is split into four parts, and “this does not correspond here” 〔T32 458c24〕.

The third fault refutes “four paths and four modes of conduct.” If the preceding point is accepted, presently seeing suffering forms a four-part person abiding in the stream-entry path, a four-part faith-follower, and a four-part Dhamma-follower, even though the remaining three truths have not been seen. Thus there come to be four stream-entry paths, four faith-followers, and four Dhamma-followers—again they do not correspond.

The fourth fault refutes “one directed toward the fruit and one established in the fruit.” If presently seeing the path makes one directed toward the fruit, and seeing the path makes one established in the fruit, then presently seeing suffering should also make one directed, and seeing suffering should also make one established in the fruit—because what is seen is alike in being one kind. Then both those directed toward the fruit and those established in the fruit become many: “in this, this does not correspond” 〔T32 459a05〕.

The fifth fault refutes “the remaining three truths becoming empty.” If seeing the path itself realizes the fruit, and the fruit is already realized before suffering, arising, and cessation have been seen, then seeing suffering, seeing arising, and seeing the cessation of suffering become meaningless 〔T32 459a07 onward〕.

The sixth fault refutes the three numbers offered by the other side itself. If it is acceptable to realize the fruit of stream-entry with twelve, eight, or four path knowledges, then the fruits of stream-entry realized should likewise number twelve, eight, or four. There thus comes to be “path knowledge without fruit” 〔T32 459a12〕.

The seventh fault refutes “many to one.” If twelve, eight, or four path knowledges together give rise to one fruit of stream-entry, that too does not correspond: “Many things causing one fruit to arise are like many 菴婆 fruits causing one fruit to be born” 〔T32 459a16–17〕.

Read together, the seven faults pursue “sequence” all the way to “number.” The first five pursue the divisions brought forth by sequence—the fruit divided, the path divided, conduct divided, directed person divided, and truths left empty. The sixth tests whether twelve, eight, or four path knowledges would imply twelve, eight, or four fruits; the seventh tests whether those many knowledges can produce one fruit. They are transcribed without explaining this order on the author’s behalf.

The Three Words “Does Not Correspond” Occupy Nearly Half Their Occurrences in This Passage

The backbone of the debate is one expression.

The Chinese expression 不相應 (“does not correspond”) occurs twenty-three times in the treatise, eleven in this passage (458c15·458c24·458c25·459a01·459a02·459a05·459a07·459a13·459a14–15·459a16·459a20). Nearly half its occurrences in the whole treatise are crowded into this one passage.

Its use is emphatic. “This does not correspond here” occurs twice (458c24·458c29–459a01), while “this too does not correspond” occurs three times (459a06–07·459a14–15·459a16). The author does not say that the other position is “wrong”; he says it “does not correspond.” It does not fail to correspond with words of the Buddha; the other teacher’s own statements fail to correspond with one another.

All seven faults refute mismatches among the other side’s own statements. They are transcribed without supplying a reason for this method.

This point also governs the restraint of the passage. The author cites no sūtra and never once says “as the Buddha said.” Throughout the passage, he relies only on the other side’s own statements. Refuting a position without bringing in outside support is not common in this treatise. It is transcribed as it stands.

Pause Here: Why Does Only the Last of Seven Faults Close with a Simile?

The seventh fault is the shortest and also the most different: “Furthermore, the seventh fault: if it is acceptable that twelve, eight, or four path knowledges cause one fruit of stream-entry to arise, this too does not correspond. Many things causing one fruit to arise are like many 菴婆 fruits causing one fruit to be born” 〔T32 459a15–17〕.

The first six faults are pure inference and contain not one simile. At the seventh, a simile of 菴婆 fruits suddenly appears. The Chinese expression 菴婆 occurs only once in the treatise.

Pause and ask: why, among the seven faults, does only this one close with a simile?

This passage cannot answer. Three matters can be checked: the first six faults contain zero similes, while the last contains one; this simile is attached to “many things causing one fruit to arise”; and both the sixth and seventh faults reason with the numbers twelve, eight, and four. The seventh alone turns those numbers into a many-to-one objection and closes with a simile.

This edition transcribes without explaining why. It records only where the simile occurs and that the preceding six faults have none.

Enclosure by Two Branches: How the Pattern Works

The first four faults explicitly use a paired pattern. Its actual extent must be seen clearly: the last three faults do not repeat the explicit negative branch.

In each of the first four faults, the text has a three-step frame: first follow the other side’s words one step further; next say what follows “if this is acceptable”; finally say that “if this is not acceptable,” the premise itself also falls. The fifth, sixth, and seventh continue the reductio from what is said to be acceptable without restating that final negative branch.

Take the first fault. The other side says that practice proceeds sequentially, the defilements are abandoned sequentially, and realization therefore proceeds sequentially. The author follows the argument: realizing the fruit sequentially is then acceptable, because it corresponds to path and fruit. But “if this is acceptable, does one fruit of stream-entry result?” 〔T32 458c17–18〕. How can one fruit of stream-entry correspond to those many sequences? If instead this is said to be unacceptable, then “cultivating the path sequentially and abandoning the defilements sequentially” are equally unacceptable.

Both branches are closed, and the other side has nowhere to withdraw.

There is a restraint worth recording throughout the sequence: from beginning to end, he does not establish a separate position of his own to replace the other teacher’s. Not once among the seven faults does he say, “it should be this way”; he repeatedly says only, “this does not correspond here” and “this too does not correspond.” He refutes without establishing.

His own establishment had already been made in 12-09: “in one instant, with one knowledge, distinguishing the four truths as neither first nor later” 〔T32 457a27〕. This passage only pushes down, one by one, the statements opposed to that establishment; it does not restate its own position.

It was established in the other passage and refuted here; while refuting, it is not established again. This is the position of the passage within the whole chapter. This edition records its form without explaining why on the author’s behalf.

The Final Answer Has Only Three Sentences

The third question compresses the objection into two branches: “Question: If, with one knowledge in one instant and without before or after, the four truths are distinguished, then one knowledge ought to become four objects of appropriation by seeing” 〔T32 459a17–19〕. If seeing suffering constitutes seeing the four truths, the four truths become the truth of suffering. If neither branch is established, distinguishing the four truths in one knowledge and one instant does not correspond.

The author’s answer has only three sentences: “Answer: It is not that one knowledge becomes four objects of appropriation by seeing, nor that the four truths become the truth of suffering” 〔T32 459a21–22〕. One negative sentence blocks each branch. Then: “The meditator proceeds only from the four truths at the outset: diverse characteristics and one characteristic, because they were distinguished beforehand” 〔T32 459a22–23〕.

Two negative sentences block the two branches; only one sentence gives the reason. That sentence’s reason is “because they were distinguished beforehand,” referring to the distinctions already made in the preceding passages before path knowledge.

No simile is offered, no authority cited, and no new group of terms established. Seven faults are used to refute the other teacher; only three sentences are used in the author’s own answer. It is transcribed as it stands.

(For the final Chinese graph 別 in this sentence, three witnesses read 別前. This bears on how the sentence is read. Both are recorded without adjudication, and the body follows the base text.)

The two branches blocked by these three sentences are precisely the two absurdities obtained by pushing “one knowledge, one instant” to an extreme. First, one knowledge would have to perform four acts of appropriation by seeing at the same time. Second, all four truths would become the truth of suffering. The objector supposes one of these must follow; the author says neither does.

His entire basis is the four Chinese graphs translated “distinguished beforehand.” Path knowledge can avoid both division and conflation in that instant because the distinctions were completed before it: the aggregates, sense entrances, elements, name-and-form, three characteristics, arising and cessation, contemplation of cessation, similarity, and disposition-removing knowledge described in the preceding passages are the work of “prior distinction.” In the instant of path knowledge, the truths are not distinguished afresh four times, nor are four things fused into one; rather, diverse characteristics and one characteristic are present together 〔T32 459a22–23〕.

The author compresses this layer into a single sentence and does not elaborate further. It is transcribed without supplementation.

---

Carry away three things. One observation: there are seven faults, but the numbering begins with “the second fault” 〔T32 458c19 onward〕, while the first fault is unnumbered and begins directly with “If practice proceeds sequentially” 〔T32 458c15–16〕. Six are numbered and one is not, making seven faults. One reading method: when a list is numbered, first count where its numbers begin and end, then look for an item without a number. Counting only the numbered items loses one; reading only by the numbers makes it seem one is missing. One place to pause: only the last of the seven faults closes with a simile—“like many 菴婆 fruits causing one fruit to be born” 〔T32 459a17〕, with 菴婆 occurring only once in the treatise—while the first six contain zero similes. Both the sixth and seventh reason with twelve, eight, and four; the seventh uniquely turns those numbers into many to one and closes with the simile. It is transcribed without explaining why.

Three smaller matters should also be retained: 有師說 (“a teacher says”) occurs only once in the treatise 〔T32 458c13〕, yet neither the teacher’s name nor book is given, and the author does not call the position an alternate explanation; 不相應 (“does not correspond”) occurs twenty-three times in the treatise and eleven in this passage, nearly half, and each fault concerns a mismatch among the other side’s own statements; the final answer has only three sentences—two negative sentences blocking two branches, and one giving the reason, “because they were distinguished beforehand,” with no simile and no citation 〔T32 459a21–23〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · The Objection to Sequentially Distinguishing the Truths and the Four Truths in One Instant · Exposition · Summer 2026