聖賢

I. What This Concept Is Actually Saying

The two characters 圣贤 (āryapudgala, "noble person") in contemporary Chinese have been nearly worn down into a mere honorific — "a person of sage virtue," "the way of the sages" — used loosely to denote a kind of moral elevation. But in the Buddhist context, it is a substantive concept with a strict inner meaning, directly corresponding to the path of liberation. It is not a word of praise; it is a description of stage.

In the classical source material, the 《增壹阿含经》 (Ekottarāgama, "the Increased-by-One Āgama") does not give an abstract definition of 圣贤, but rather sketches its contours from four sides through the scenario of giving (布施, dāna, "giving"). These four sides must be read separately, not merged together, because each carries a different doctrinal center of gravity.

First aspect: 贤圣人 — a concrete, identifiable, encounterable individual

The sūtra says in verse:

「世间有贤圣人，施中最为上，如良田生果。」

*"In this world there are noble persons; among all objects of giving they are supreme, like a good field bearing fruit."*

Here there is a premise that contemporary readers often overlook: the noble person is not an abstract "moral ideal," but a living human being who can be recognized and encountered. The sūtra accomplishes this positioning in three steps:

1. 「世间有」 — "in this world there is" — noble persons exist concretely in this world, not in a distant heavenly realm, nor only in scriptures; 2. 「贤圣人」 — "noble person" — this is an individual identity; the character 人 ("person") anchors the tendency of the character 圣 ("noble/sage") to float into abstraction; 3. 「施中最为上」 — "supreme among all objects of giving" — this person is the highest among all objects of giving, because "like a good field bearing fruit" — the simile of the good field is especially precise: whatever kind of soil you plant in determines what kind of harvest you get; the same seed yields almost nothing in alkaline soil, yet bears abundant fruit in fertile soil. The emphasis of this line is not "how morally elevated this person is," but rather "the same act of giving, directed toward this person, will produce a far greater fruit than when directed toward an ordinary person."

This leads to the extremely important Buddhist concept of the 福田 (puṇya-kṣetra, "field of merit") — the noble person is the supreme field of merit, the "seed-soil" for acts of giving.

Second aspect: 贤圣众 — a community constituted by the "four approaches" and "four fruits"

The sūtra continues:

「四向成就人，四者成果实，此名贤圣众。」

*"Those accomplished in the four approaches, and the four who attain the fruits — these are called the noble assembly."*

This is the most technical part of the whole concept, and the part most easily skipped over. The content of the noble person's identity, in the context of the 《增壹阿含经》, corresponds directly to the stages of cultivation and realization in the 声闻乘 (śrāvakayāna, "the vehicle of the hearers/disciples"): the four approaches (四向: 须陀洹向 srotāpanna-pratipannaka "approaching stream-entry," 斯陀含向 sakṛdāgāmin-pratipannaka "approaching once-returning," 阿那含向 anāgāmin-pratipannaka "approaching non-returning," 阿罗汉向 arhat-pratipannaka "approaching arhatship") and the four fruits (四果: 须陀洹果 srotāpanna-phala "fruit of stream-entry," 斯陀含果 sakṛdāgāmin-phala "fruit of once-returning," 阿那含果 anāgāmin-phala "fruit of non-returning," 阿罗汉果 arhat-phala "fruit of arhatship").

What is called "approach" (向) is the process of "correctly heading toward"; what is called "fruit" (果) is the completion of "having already attained." The two together are called the "noble assembly" (贤圣众), meaning that noble persons include both those who are already firmly standing on a certain stage of liberation and those who are earnestly and steadily advancing toward that stage.

There are two key points that must be stated precisely here, or the concept will be narrowed:

First, "already attained or currently heading toward" — both states count as noble. This is the core definition given by the source text itself. In other words, one does not have to wait until complete liberation to be called noble; a person who is on the path of liberation, who has already begun to change tracks, has already entered the scope of "noble." This "dynamic recognition" differs enormously from the popular image of the "flawless sage."

Second, what exactly is the content of the "four approaches and four fruits"? They are different levels of severing defilements — the first fruit, the stream-enterer (须陀洹, srotāpanna), severs the three fetters (三结, trīṇi saṃyojanāni: personality view 身见, attachment to rites and observances 戒禁取, and doubt 疑); the second fruit, the once-returner (斯陀含, sakṛdāgāmin), weakens the defilements; the third fruit, the non-returner (阿那含, anāgāmin), severs the five lower fetters (五下分结, pañca-avara-bhāgīya-saṃyojanāni); the fourth fruit, the arhat (阿罗汉), severs all defilements and attains final liberation. So "noble" (圣) here is not a character-quality word, but rather a marker of actual cultivation stage: how many cognitive defilements (见惑, darśana-heya) and affective defilements (修惑, bhāvanā-heya) one has severed, and which stretch of the path of liberation one stands on.

Third aspect: 圣贤 — as the condition for "crossing over" (得度)

The verse continues:

「普平等布施，终不违逆者，必当遇圣贤，缘斯而得度。」

*"One who gives universally and equally, who never goes against this — will surely encounter the noble ones, and by that condition attain crossing-over."*

The center of gravity here shifts from "what the noble person is" to "what role the noble person plays in your life." The first three lines describe the giver's attitude — "universally equal" (普平等), "never going against" (终不违逆) — meaning the mind does not discount, does not pick and choose, does not discriminate between close and distant, noble and base. Then the causal chain clearly emerges: giving with equanimity and non-opposition → encountering the noble ones → crossing over by that condition.

Here the noble person is not merely an object of offering, but rather an external condition leading to liberation. That is, through encountering the noble person (not just "seeing" them, but connecting with them on the level of mind), one is able to step onto the path of liberation.

The sūtra deliberately keeps this brief: "by that condition one attains crossing-over" only points out that "encountering the noble ones leads to crossing over" — it does not elaborate in this passage on "how one crosses over" or "what exactly is crossed over." The source material also emphasizes that one should not extrapolate further. So I preserve this structure as a "condition-channel" (因缘通道, "condition-channel"), without filling in details the sūtra itself did not write.

Fourth aspect: 百贤圣 — a collective general designation

The line:

「此百贤圣，悉应广演」

*"These hundred noble ones — all should be widely expounded."*

presents another usage: "hundred noble ones" (百贤圣) is a collective numeral, used to refer generally to many noble persons, without enumerating specific names.

The source material specifically warns: one must not, because it says "hundred," extrapolate "which specific hundred persons these are." This is an expression denoting "many noble ones who need to be widely introduced," and belongs to a different dimension of word-form function from the previous three aspects (individual identity, the four-approach/four-fruit assembly, and conditional encounter).

Word-form division: multiple usages preserved in the source

The 《增壹阿含经》 simultaneously uses four different word-forms for this concept. This is not loose writing; each word-form has its own function:

| Word form | Center of gravity | Source | |---|---|---| | 贤圣人 | the individual who can be known and given to | the verse 「观察施第一」 ("observing giving as supreme") | | 贤圣众 | the assembly constituted by the four approaches and four fruits | the passage combining the four approaches and four fruits | | 百贤圣 | numerical general designation | 「此百贤圣」 ("these hundred noble ones") | | 圣贤 | the object the giver encounters | 「必当遇圣贤」 ("will surely encounter the noble ones") |

In organizing this, all four must coexist; they cannot be replaced by a single translated term. This is a hard requirement given by the source material.

Positioning the whole in one sentence back on the path of liberation

Taken together, these four aspects place 圣贤 at a particular position on the entire path of liberation:

It is not liberation itself, but rather those people on the path of liberation who have already walked a certain distance, or who are currently walking. They are both the "good field" that other practitioners can draw near, the soil in which giving produces great fruits, and the external condition that other people can encounter when conditions ripen, inspiring them to step further onto the path of liberation.

In other words, 圣贤 is a concept of a horizontal line — it marks out "people on the same path of liberation who can recognize each other's direction." You do not need to wait until you are completely liberated to be "worthy" of encountering the noble ones; and you do not need the noble ones to be "flawless" for them to be qualified to be called noble — how many fetters you have severed, which stretch of the path you have walked, that is the noble stage you are at.

II. Walking Through It in Daily Life

Let me walk these four aspects through contemporary life — using scenes such as commuting, scrolling through the phone, intimate relationships, and team collaboration — strictly mapping them against the classical definitions.

Scenario one: a teacher in a meditation circle — "the noble person as identifiable individual"

Suppose you walk into a proper meditation center and meet a teacher who has practiced steadily for decades and has considerable depth in his meditation subject (业处, kammaṭṭhāna, "meditation subject"). In Buddhism, such a person is often called "noble" (圣) by the elders. This corresponds to the first aspect: he is "a noble person who exists in this world" (世间有的贤圣人).

Here there are two places where people most often map incorrectly:

Mismatch one: substituting social identity for stage. In contemporary society, "noble" (圣) is often mistaken for social status — a great abbot, a famous professor, a sectarian leader. But in the source material, the content of "four approaches and four fruits" is the actual cultivation stage of severing defilements, not a clerical position. A person bearing the title of great master, if he is merely rich in knowledge and has not truly engaged in insight meditation (内观, vipaśyanā, "insight meditation") to sever fetters, does not count as a noble one in this concept; conversely, a completely anonymous lay practitioner who has genuinely loosened the three fetters of personality view, attachment to rites, and doubt, and has seen concrete calm-and-insight (止观, śamatha-vipaśyanā) experience — in this concept he is already at the "approach" (向, "approaching") stage of some level.

Mismatch two: treating "noble" as "perfect." This is the deepest misunderstanding of the contemporary image of 圣贤 (I will clarify this specifically later). The classical source's "those accomplished in the four approaches" (四向成就人) clearly tells us — "approach" (向) means not yet at the "fruit" (果), so all four "approach" noble ones are still on the road. And the arhat, the highest of the four fruits, is — from Buddhism's own doctrine — not a contrived perfection, but rather defilements no longer manifesting (烦恼不再现行, "defilements no longer arise"). A contemporary reader's first reaction might be "then I have to wait until I am good enough to draw near the noble ones" — but that itself is the error of deifying the noble ones.

Scenario two: a "practice community" in a local group — "the noble assembly"

Suppose you join a group that meets regularly for collective practice, containing newcomers who have just encountered Buddhism, practitioners who have practiced for many years, and some people who are by nature very steady, able to naturally hold the space in the group and let everyone's restlessness gradually settle. Such a group is sometimes regarded as a small-scale "noble assembly" (贤圣众).

This corresponds to the second aspect: the "four approaches and four fruits" actually correspond to the possibility that members of this group have different depths of severing and realization. But there is an extremely important point here: we outsiders usually cannot accurately judge who has seen the first fruit and who is still before the third fruit. This is precisely why the sūtra uses the collective term "noble assembly" — this concept has, at the level of daily life, a dimension of "cannot be quantified, but can be gradually recognized." It is neither necessary nor possible for outsiders to put a stage-label on each person.

The most common mapping error: draping the garment of "noble" (圣) over worldly criteria — who lectures on the Dharma the most, who has the biggest title, who dresses most solemnly. None of these are the content of the four approaches and four fruits. What the four approaches and four fruits require is real insight experience — have you had moment-by-moment bodily and sensory realization that "the five aggregates are not me"? Have the three fetters (personality view, attachment to rites, doubt) genuinely loosened? These are things that only oneself — strictly speaking, only noble ones of the same stage — can know with certainty.

Scenario three: someone you meet in a low point of life — "encountering the noble ones"

This is the contemporary mapping of the third aspect.

At some stage of your life — unemployment, divorce, anxiety collapse — through some condition (a friend's introduction, a book, a conversation, a work mentor) you encounter a person whose very existence turns something within you: he did not teach you any technique, but planted a seed in your mind that makes you begin to rethink what kind of life is more worth living.

This is the contemporary echo of "will surely encounter the noble ones, and by that condition attain crossing-over" (必当遇圣贤，缘斯而得度). In this aspect, the content of the word "noble one" (圣贤), judging from the source text itself, does not specifically indicate a stage of severing or realization; it is closer to a person who has genuinely awakened to life and can trigger the awakening of others. In a Buddhist context, he could be someone among the four approaches and four fruits; in a broader public context, he could be anyone who has truly walked through suffering on the level of mind and lives with a certain quality of liberation.

The most common mapping errors:

Mismatch three: treating encounter as learning. Contemporary people easily hear "encountering the noble ones" as "attending a class," "reading a good book," "learning a method" — but "by that condition one attains crossing-over" (缘斯而得度) speaks of this person's life trajectory being turned around. That is a change of nature, not an accumulation of knowledge.

Mismatch four: treating encounter as a rare event. The "will surely" (必当) in "will surely encounter the noble ones" (必当遇圣贤) carries causal necessity: when the giver (here in the broadened sense of "one who acts with focused mind") truly achieves "universal equanimity" (普平等) and "never going against" (终不违逆), the noble one will naturally appear in some form within his causal conditions. Note that this does not require the person to "publicly introduce themselves as a noble one." In contemporary life, this might be an ordinary person — a sentence on the subway that leaves you stunned on the spot, a bookstore clerk's sincere recommendation, the reflection of someone who has lived longer than you — they may have no Buddhist identity at all, yet at a certain moment they served as the noble one in your life.

Scenario four: cross-domain comparison — "extreme role models" in the algorithmic age

In the age of algorithms, people are constantly pushed toward "extreme role models" — KOLs as perfect standards, top entrepreneurs, top athletes. On the surface these closely resemble the "noble" (圣) of the classical meaning, but the four-approach/four-fruit standard in the source material reminds us — the content of the stage is severing defilements, not reaching worldly peaks.

A person pushed to the extreme by algorithms, with millions of followers and a seemingly perfect life, may have no loosening at all in personality view, attachment to rites, or doubt — he still operates within a strong grasping at self (我执, ātma-grāha, "grasping at self"), pursuing the "I" ever higher, farther, more recognized. Under the classical concept, this is very far from "noble."

Conversely, some people who look "ordinary" or even "failed" in contemporary society — someone who has been sober from alcohol for five years, someone who has left a controlling relationship, someone who accepts death without dramatizing it — in the concrete practice of severing certain fetters, they may already be standing at some position among the four approaches. This is the most uncomfortable and most meaningful part of the contemporary concept of 圣贤: it has nothing to do with worldly achievement, and everything to do with real inner change.

Scenario five: a weak comparison offered by contemporary neuroscience (with its limits marked)

Regarding "severing fetters" and "changing the mind's habitual tendencies," contemporary neuroscience has begun to accumulate some observational evidence: long-term meditators show different activity patterns in certain brain regions (such as the default mode network) compared with ordinary people; some psychotherapy schools (such as the "cognitive defusion" of ACT, or the "de-identification" of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, MBCT) have shown clinically that they can change an individual's relationship to thoughts and emotions.

These studies have two clear boundaries that must be stated:

- What can be observed is "changes in brain activity patterns", which cannot be directly equated with Buddhism's "severing a particular fetter." The former is a measurable change at the phenomenal level; the latter is an extremely specific experience of mental liberation within the Buddhist tradition. Whether there is a complete correspondence between the two is far from settled in contemporary science. - What the algorithm's "personalized recommendation" achieves is "remembering your preferences" and reinforcing them — this is almost the opposite direction from "counteracting grasping at self": the former strengthens the grasping, the latter loosens it. So this comparison precisely demonstrates why the concept of 圣贤 is especially worth cherishing in the contemporary era — because the overall algorithmic tendency of the age is precisely in the opposite direction.

III. Why Contemporary People Need It

1. Counteracting the "perfect sage fantasy," a contemporary spiritual epidemic

Contemporary people's imagination of "noble" (圣) is shaped by two things: the "perfect savior" of films, and the "perfect exemplar" of commercial culture. The common problem of these two imaginaries is — the noble is pushed above ordinary people, unreachably high, so that between noble and ordinary there remains only one relationship: reverence.

But the 《增壹阿含经》's "those accomplished in the four approaches" (四向成就人) clearly tells us that people at the "approach" stage — those still on the road, those who have not yet fully arrived — are already noble ones. All four "approach" stages are states of "having set out but not yet arrived." This completely shatters the contemporary imaginary of "noble = perfect."

Contemporary people generally harbor the inner tendency "I have to wait until I am good enough before I am worthy of coming out" — afraid to study openly, afraid to enter a practice center, afraid to admit that one is learning Buddhism, afraid to claim any moment of awakening. This inner obstruction is precisely a side effect of the "perfect sage fantasy." And the classical source's statement that "the noble assembly consists of the four approaches and four fruits" hollows out this fantasy from the bottom — the content of "noble" is dynamic, gradual, and stage-based, not a static "perfect endpoint."

2. Providing a "recognizable horizontal reference system"

One of contemporary society's problems is the absence of an inner scale of mind — we have an abundance of fine measuring instruments for outer success (salary, position, influence, follower count), but no commonly recognized reference for inner stages of mind.

What the concept of 圣贤 provides is precisely a horizontal line of inner mind: people who have seen that "the five aggregates of clinging are not 'me'" (五取蕴, pañca-upādāna-skandhāḥ), people who have loosened personality view, people who no longer grasp themselves through precepts, people who no longer protect themselves by doubting everything — all of these are at different stages of the four approaches and four fruits, giving a horizontal marker.

This is not an achievement pressure imposed on you from outside, but rather a navigation aid: where are you? Who has walked ahead of you? Is this direction real? These questions no longer require you to judge by feeling alone.

3. The contemporary significance of "can be encountered" and "can be drawn near"

One of the deepest lonelinesses of contemporary people is not being able to find someone three or five steps ahead of you on the horizontal line, who can walk with you. In the workplace there are superior-subordinate relationships; in friend circles there are echo chambers; in interest communities there are companions of similar depth — but rarely is there someone "who has already walked some distance in your inner depths, on the fundamental questions of life, and to whom you can confirm your direction."

The aspect of 贤圣人 (the noble person as individual) emphasizes precisely that this kind of person truly exists in this world, can be recognized, and can be encountered. This is not abstract faith — it is the concrete fact repeatedly emphasized by the sūtra: "in this world there is" (世间有), "will surely encounter" (必当遇).

4. Why "four approaches and four fruits" rather than an abstract "good person"

This relates to another contemporary phenomenon — the word "good person" (好人) has been severely polluted in contemporary usage. In the contemporary context, "good person" can refer to someone who has no insight at all, is self-centered, but appears sociable, or equally to someone who genuinely reflects within suffering and whose behavior instead seems out of place.

Using "good person" as the standard will filter out many genuine practitioners of the mind; using "noble" (圣) and "worthy" (贤) plus the stage-description of the "four approaches and four fruits" brings the standard down to concrete facts of the mind — whether you have truly seen "not-self" in the five aggregates of clinging, whether you have genuinely loosened the three fetters, whether you truly no longer need these things to protect the "I."

This is a framework that contemporary practice communities can borrow, and should use with caution. Used well, it is a guided inner map; used poorly, it becomes another high wall — that is a different misreading, which needs to be addressed in the next section.

5. Counteracting the "grasping-at-self amplifier" of the algorithmic age

The previous section touched on this: the basic operation of the algorithm is to continuously amplify the user's preferences, self-identity, and consumption tendencies — in essence, "wherever your grasping at self is, I will reinforce it."

In this age, what the concept of 圣贤 provides is precisely the opposite direction: its entire content (from the specific stages of the four approaches and four fruits, to the attitudes of "universal equanimity" and "never going against") loosens the structure of the "I."

Contemporary people do not need more things that reinforce the "I" — social media is already doing that; what contemporary people need is for the "I" to no longer stand so much in the way. In this sense, the concept of 圣贤 is an antidote to contemporary culture, not another concept that inflates the ego.

IV. Common Misreadings and Clarifications

Misreading one: "圣贤 = a morally perfect person"

This is the most widespread misreading in the contemporary era.

When people hear the character 圣 (noble/sage), they automatically project the Confucian "sage" (圣人) or the Christian "saint" — morally flawless, entirely perfect, beyond reproach. But the 《增壹阿含经》 source material is clear:

- The four "approach" noble ones are all still on the road, not yet at the "fruit"; - The content of "noble" is the specific stage of severing defilements, not "a high score in moral character"; - A noble one at the first fruit who has seen the path but still has a hot temper is, under the classical concept, closer to "noble" than a "good person" with a mild temper and no inner awakening at all.

This does not mean "morality is irrelevant" — the realization of a stage necessarily brings a natural transformation of behavior; but a behavioral score is not the marker of a stage. What marks the stage is the loosening of the mind's grasping at "I" and "mine" (我、我所).

Contemporary people should shed the inner obstruction of "only the morally perfect are qualified to approach this concept."

Misreading two: "Noble ones are certified by others; it has nothing to do with me"

The structure of the source text's "those accomplished in the four approaches, the four who attain the fruits" (四向成就人，四者成果实) places the reader within this assembly as well — you can be someone currently advancing toward a fruit. In other words, the content of the word 圣贤 logically also covers oneself, insofar as one sincerely advances on the path of liberation.

The most common inner pattern of contemporary people is: "These concepts are all about those teachers who have practiced for many years; they have nothing to do with me; I will just listen." This pattern itself is a concrete manifestation of the "I" structure — pushing the concept outward, always remaining a bystander. The source material, through the structure of "those accomplished in the four approaches" (四向成就人), breaks this externalization: it invites the reader to understand, through the dynamic meaning of "those accomplished in the four approaches," that one may oneself be at the present stage of some "approach."

Misreading three: "Encountering the noble ones = attending a class"

This was already developed in the previous section, but let me emphasize it once more: the source says "by that condition one attains crossing-over" (缘斯而得度) — "crossing over" (度) is a verb, meaning the state of one's life is turned around. Modern people have narrowed learning to "taking classes," "reading," "listening to lectures," so they naturally hear "encountering the noble ones" as "encountering a famous teacher giving a lecture." But the concept in the source is broader: something that loosens you from within, that makes you reorder life's priorities, that makes it impossible for you to return to your former self after an apparently unrelated conversation — these are the contemporary forms of "encounter."

Misreading four: narrowing the "four approaches and four fruits" into "Buddhist jargon, nothing to do with me"

The "four approaches and four fruits" sounds like Buddhist terminology to be memorized, but if you are willing to translate its content into contemporary language, it is extremely plain:

- The three fetters are: "I am this body" (personality view 身见), "this is the only way to practice" (attachment to rites and observances 戒禁取), "all truth is suspect" (doubt 疑); - The contemporary life-practice of loosening these three fetters is: broader awareness of the body, more tolerance for ways of practice, and sincere rather than defensive acceptance of fundamental truth.

These are not things from outside the sky; they are inner processes that every person who has seriously thought "who am I" and "how should I live" goes through. The "four approaches and four fruits" in the source is merely a stage-naming of this process, allowing people to recognize where they have walked to.

Misreading five: "圣贤" = "the identity of a specific religion"

In the contemporary context, people often automatically assign 圣贤 to the category of Buddhism (or even a specific sect), feeling that if they are not adherents of that religion, they should not read, discuss, or draw near this concept.

But the core presented by the source text — severing fetters, crossing over, encountering — is actually a description of all sincere practice of the mind. Any person who genuinely loosens you in "I" and "mine," any condition that lets you see your clinging in the five aggregates of clinging and truly let go of some of it — under the framework of the source, can be regarded as a certain contemporary form of "noble one."

This is not diluting the Buddhist concept into "generic positive energy," but rather acknowledging that the source's criterion for the noble one (empirical severing of fetters) already points to specific facts of the mind — and these facts are not the private property of any religion; they are part of the common structure of the human mind.

Misreading six: using "圣贤" as a self-certifying label

"I am already a noble one," "I am a noble one of the fourth fruit," "I am closer to the noble than anyone" — this kind of self-certifying language is precisely the most typical manifestation of the very "grasping at self" (我执) that the source says needs to be severed.

The source text, by using the stage-based, continuous description of "four approaches and four fruits," avoids the binary self-label of "I am a sage." A genuine noble one, in essence, would not announce "I am a noble one" — because they no longer cling so tightly to "I," and no longer use self-announcement to protect themselves.

When contemporary people hear someone (or themselves) say "I am already a noble one," a good test is: when this sentence is uttered, is the grasping at self loosened or strengthened? If it is the latter, this is likely the exact opposite of the content of the word "noble one" in the source.

A final clarification: the source's restraint as a reminder

Looking back at the source material, there are two places of clear restraint that we should continue:

1. When mentioning the "hundred noble ones" (百贤圣), it reminds us "one should not on this basis fill in a specific classification" — meaning where you are not sure, do not force-fill; 2. When mentioning "by that condition one attains crossing-over" (缘斯而得度), it reminds us "the original text does not here explain in detail what is crossed over and how one crosses over, so one should preserve its brief expression and not extrapolate" — meaning what the sūtra did not say, do not say on its behalf.

These two acts of restraint can also be read as a reminder left by the concept of 圣贤 for contemporary readers: when you listen to a concept, you should also carry this restraint — hear clearly what the source said, and hear clearly what the source did not say; do not use your imagination to complete what the sūtra never said.

This is especially important for contemporary people, because contemporary people are especially skilled at packaging plain classical concepts into chicken-soup-for-the-soul, inspirational slogans, and product copy. I wrote this interpretation carrying this reminder as well: what the source has (the stage-based nature of severing fetters, encounterability, the content of the four approaches and four fruits, the relationship to giving) I develop thoroughly; what the source does not have (the specific names of the hundred noble ones, the detailed mechanism of "crossing over") I do not fill in on its behalf.

This itself is a contemporary practice of the concept of 圣贤 in the source: honesty toward concepts, not allowing one's projections to fill the gaps — this is a small exercise in "severing grasping at self" (断我执) performed while reading this concept.