The Difference in the Noble Path’s Factors, etc.

111. This knowledge of equanimity about formations governs the fact that the meditator keeps apart. It furthermore governs the difference in the [number of the] noble path’s enlightenment factors, path factors, and jhāna factors, the mode of progress, and the kind of liberation. For while some elders say that it is the jhāna used as the basis for insight [leading to emergence] that governs the difference in the [number of] enlightenment factors, path factors, and jhāna factors, and some say that it is the aggregates made the object of insight that govern it, and some say that it is the personal bent that governs it,^[1] yet it is only this preliminary insight and insight leading to emergence that should be understood to govern it in their doctrine.

112. To deal with these [three theories] in order: According to governance by insight, the path arisen in a bare-insight (dry-insight) worker, and the path arisen in one who possesses a jhāna attainment but who has not made the jhāna the basis for insight, and the path made to arise by comprehending unrelated formations after using the first jhāna as the basis for insight, are [667] paths of the first jhāna only. In each case there are seven enlightenment factors, eight path factors, and five jhāna factors. For while their preliminary insight can be accompanied by joy and it can be accompanied by equanimity, when their insight reaches the state of equanimity about formations at the time of emergence it is accompanied by joy.

113. When paths are made to arise by using the second, third, and fourth jhānas in the fivefold reckoning as the basis for insight, then the jhāna in those paths has respectively four, three, and two factors. In each case, however, the path factors number seven, and in the fourth case there are six enlightenment factors. This difference is due both to governance by the basic jhāna and to governance by insight. For again, while their preliminary insight can be accompanied by joy and it can be accompanied by equanimity, their insight leading to emergence is accompanied by joy only.

114. However, when the path is produced by making the fifth jhāna the basis for insight, then the jhāna factors number two, that is, equanimity and unification of the mind, and there are six enlightenment factors and seven path factors. This difference too is due to both kinds of governance. For in this case the preliminary insight is either accompanied by joy or accompanied by equanimity, but that leading to emergence is accompanied by equanimity only. The same method applies in the case of the path made to arise by making the immaterial jhānas the basis for insight.

Also when, after emerging from jhāna made the basis for insight, the path has been produced by comprehending no matter what formations [unrelated to that jhāna], then it is the attainment emerged from at the point nearest to the path that makes it like itself, as the colour of the soil does an monitor lizard’s colour.

115. But in the case of the second elder’s theory the path is like the attainment, whatever it may be, which was instrumental in producing the path through the comprehension of any of its states after emergence from it. And here governance by insight should be understood in the same way as before.

116. In the case of the third elder’s theory the path is like that jhāna, whichever it may be, that suits the personal bent, which jhāna was instrumental in producing the path through the comprehension of any of its states in using it as the basis for insight. But this is not accomplished by mere bent alone unless the jhāna has been made the basis for insight or unless the jhāna has been comprehended; and this meaning should be illustrated by the Nandakovāda Sutta (see M III 277, and Commentary). And here too, governance by insight should be understood in the same way as before.

This, firstly, is how it should be understood that equanimity about formations governs the [numbers of] enlightenment factors, path factors, and jhāna factors.

117. [Progress.] But if [insight] has from the start only been able to suppress defilements with difficulty, with effort and with prompting, then it is called “of difficult progress.” [668] The opposite kind is called “of easy progress.” And when the manifestation of the path, the goal of insight, is slowly effected after defilements have been suppressed, then it is called “of sluggish directknowledge.” The opposite kind is called “of swift direct-knowledge.” So this equanimity about formations stands at the arrival point and gives its own name to the path in each case, and so the path has four names [according to the kind of progress] (see D III 228).

118. For one bhikkhu this progress is different in the four paths, while for another it is the same. For Buddhas, however, the four paths are of easy progress and swift direct-knowledge. Likewise in the case of the General of the Dhamma [the Elder Sāriputta]. But in the Elder Mahā Moggallāna’s case the first path was of easy progress and swift direct-knowledge, but the others were of difficult progress and sluggish direct-knowledge.

119. [Predominance.] And as with the kinds of progress, so also with the kinds of predominance,^[2] which are different in the four paths for one bhikkhu and the same for another. So it is equanimity about formations that governs the difference in the progress.

[Liberation.] But it has already been told how it governs the difference in the liberation [§66f.].

120. Furthermore, the path gets its names for five reasons, that is to say, (1) owing to its own nature, or (2) owing to what it opposes, or (3) owing to its own special quality, or (4) owing to its object, or (5) owing to the way of arrival.

121. 1. If equanimity about formations induces emergence by comprehending formations as impermanent, liberation takes place with the signless liberation. If it induces emergence by comprehending them as painful, liberation takes place with the desireless liberation. If it induces emergence by comprehending them as not-self, liberation takes place with the void liberation. This is its name according to its own nature.

122. 2. When this path is arrived at with the abandoning of the signs of permanence, lastingness, and eternalness, by effecting the resolution of the compact in formations by means of the contemplation of impermanence, it is then called signless. When it is arrived at with the drying up of desire and longing, by abandoning perception of pleasure by means of the contemplation of pain, it is then called desireless. When formations are seen as void by abandoning perception of self, of a living being, of a person, by means of the contemplation of not-self, it is then called void. This is its name according to what it opposes.

123. 3. It is void because void of greed, and so on. It is signless owing either to absence of the sign of materiality, etc., or to absence only of the sign of greed, and so on. It is desireless because of absence of desire as greed, and so on. This is its name according to its own special quality.

124. 4. It is called void, signless, and desireless, too, because it makes the void, signless, desireless Nibbāna its object. This is its name according to its object. [669]

125. 5. The way of arrival is twofold, namely, insight’s way of arrival applies to the path, and the path’s way of arrival applies to fruition.

Now, contemplation of not-self is called void and the path [arrived at] by void insight is [called] void.

Again, contemplation of impermanence is called signless and the path [arrived at] by signless insight is [called] signless.

126. But while this name is inadmissible by the Abhidhamma method,^[3] it is admissible by the Suttanta method; for, they say, by that method change-oflineage takes the name “signless” by making the signless Nibbāna its object, and while itself remaining at the arrival point, it gives its name to the path.

Hence the path is called signless. And its fruition can be called signless too according to the path’s way of arrival.

127. Lastly, contemplation of pain is called desireless because it arrives [at the path] by drying up desire for formations. The path [arrived at] by desireless insight is [called] desireless. The fruition of the desireless path is [called] desireless.

In this way insight gives its own name to the path, and the path hands it on to its fruition. This is its name according to the way of arrival.

This is how equanimity about formations governs the difference in the liberations.

Equanimity about formations is ended.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

“The first ‘some’ refers to the Elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷa-Nāga. The second ‘some’ refers to the Elder Mahā Datta, dweller at Moravāpi. The third ‘some’ refers to the Elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷa Abhaya” (Vism-mhṭ 856).

[2]:

The four predominances are those of zeal (desire), energy, consciousness, and inquiry. Cf. four roads to power (Dhs §73–74; Vibh 216 and Comy.).

[3]:

“If this is so, then is the path that follows on the contemplation of impermanence not included in the Abhidhamma?—That is not so; for it is included in the method of ‘simple progress’ (suddhika paṭipadā—see Dhs §§339–340)” (Vism-mhṭ 861).