成實論

CHAPTER 77: THE SKANDHA OF PERCEPTION IN THE SECTION ON THE TRUTH OF SUFFERING

Question: What dharma is perception?

Answer: Because it apprehends the characteristics of provisional dharmas, it is called perception. Why is this? As a sutra says: “There are persons with manifold perceptions, persons with immeasurable perceptions, and persons with perceptions of nothing whatsoever.” Yet in truth there are no such dharmas as manifoldness, fewness, and so forth.

Therefore, one should know that perception apprehends the characteristics of provisional dharmas. Perception is most often discussed in connection with cognitive inversions. Thus, amid impermanence, through inversion one perceives permanence; amid suffering, through inversion one perceives pleasure; amid non-self, through inversion one perceives a self; and amid impurity, through inversion one perceives purity.

It is also discussed in connection with resolute understanding and with contemplation of the totality spheres and the like. Through three kinds of discriminating perception, a person apprehends an object as an enemy, a loved one, or one who is both enemy and loved one. Regarding these objects, that person successively gives rise to three kinds of feeling; from these feelings arise the three poisons.

Thus, perception is at fault. Because perception is at fault, the Buddha taught that it must be relinquished. As it is said: When the eye sees a form, do not apprehend its characteristics.

Therefore, one should know that apprehending the characteristics of provisional dharmas is called perception.

Question: Is apprehending provisional dharmas perception?

This cannot be so. Why? Because this perception can eliminate those afflictions. As a sutra says: “Through properly cultivating the perception of impermanence, one can eliminate all attachment to the Desire Realm, attachment to the Form Realm, attachment to the Formless Realm, all frivolous activity, conceit, and ignorance.” Therefore, one should know that perception is not the apprehension of provisional dharmas. If apprehending provisional dharmas were perception, it should not be able to eliminate those afflictions.

Answer: This is actually wisdom, though it is designated by the name “perception.” It is like saying that one who experiences is liberated from everything. It is also said that all afflictions are eliminated by means of the mind. Again, it is said that karma which is neither dark nor bright can bring all karma to an end.

It is also said that faith enables one to cross the river; one-pointedness enables one to cross the sea; diligence dispels suffering; and wisdom can produce purity. Yet in truth it is through wisdom that one crosses over, not through faith and the others. In the same way, wisdom is designated by the name “perception.” Moreover, a sutra says: “Take wisdom as the knife.” It is also said that a noble disciple uses the sword of wisdom to sever the knots of affliction.

Therefore, one should know that wisdom can sever the knots, not perception. Furthermore, among the thirty-seven factors of the noble path, perception is not named; therefore, it does not sever the knots. Again, a sutra says: “One who knows and sees can bring the outflows to an end, not one who does not know and see.” Moreover, among the three faculties free from outflows are spoken of the faculty of knowing what is not yet known, the faculty of final knowledge, and the faculty of one who has known.

All are designated by the name “knowing.” The Buddha also said that wisdom constitutes the division of wisdom, while liberated knowledge and vision constitute the division of liberated knowledge and vision. It is also said that there is no meditative concentration without knowledge and no knowledge without meditative concentration. Again, a sutra explains in sequence that one who maintains pure precepts has no remorse, continuing until the collected mind attains knowledge of things as they truly are....

Furthermore, knowledge of dharmas and the others are all designated by the name “wisdom.” Among the three trainings, the training in wisdom is supreme. It is also said that one is endowed with wisdom and endowed with liberated knowledge and vision. Again, among the seven purifications is the purification of knowledge and vision of the path....

The Buddha is also called the One Who Rightly Knows All Dharmas and is therefore called the One of Unsurpassed Wisdom. Perception is not spoken of in this way. Moreover, according to reason, the afflictions must be eliminated by wisdom, not by perception.

Why is this? The Sutra on the Great Causal Conditions says: “Any meaning that has been incorporated into the sutras, does not contradict the characteristics of dharmas, and accords with the Vinaya should be accepted.” It also says that, when the correct meaning is present, one should set aside particular wording and follow the meaning; and when the correct wording is present, one should set aside a particular interpretation and follow the wording.

Therefore, although the sutras say that the perception of impermanence and the like can eliminate the knots, according to reason this must refer to wisdom. It is also said that ignorance is the root of the afflictions, and that through abandoning ignorance wisdom is liberated. Therefore, according to reason, it is wisdom that eliminates the afflictions.

Question: You say that perceptions apprehend the characteristics of provisional dharmas. What is a characteristic?

Answer: Some say that provisional dharmas are characteristics. There are five kinds of provisional dharmas: first, the past; second, the future; third, names; fourth, characteristics; and fifth, persons. This cannot be correct. Why? A person is established in dependence upon the five skandhas, but a characteristic is not established from causal conditions. Therefore, it is not a provisional designation.

Question: What, then, is the meaning of “characteristic”?

Answer: The object of cognition itself is the characteristic. How is this known? It is said that a lion, king of beasts, standing on this bank of a river, apprehends the characteristic of the opposite bank and then crosses the current.

If the previously marked characteristic is absent, it returns to this bank and will not depart even until death. In this sutra, an ancient tree and the like are taken as characteristics. It is also said that a bhiksu establishes a characteristic; there, robes and the like are also taken as characteristics.

It is also said that the Blessed One manifested such a characteristic. Again, when the king was eating, the prime minister accordingly apprehended the characteristic of hunger and thirst. It is also said that the early dawn is the characteristic of sunrise.

Moreover, three characteristics are spoken of: the characteristic of composure, the characteristic of exertion, and the characteristic of equanimity. There, composure and the others themselves are taken as characteristics. When one attends to a dharma and binds the mind to the object, this is called the characteristic of composure.

There, the five dharmas themselves are taken as characteristics. Therefore, one should know that a characteristic is not a provisional dharma, nor does it belong to the formations skandha. Furthermore, Sariputra apprehended the facial features and other characteristics of Purna.

Again, a sutra says that when the eye sees a form, it does not apprehend its characteristics. In addition, the Teaching on the Seal of Dharma says: “If a bhiksu personally sees that the characteristics of form and sound have been cut off, I still do not say that this person has attained purity of knowledge and vision.” For these reasons, one should know that the object itself is the characteristic, not a provisional dharma.

Question: The object is not the characteristic. Why? The samadhi of signlessness also has an object. Moreover, it is said that after seeing a form, one does not apprehend its characteristics. If the object were the characteristic, how could one apprehend the form without apprehending its characteristics?

Answer: There are two kinds of characteristics: faulty characteristics and faultless characteristics. To prevent faulty characteristics, it is taught that one sees a form without apprehending its characteristics. Even in signlessness, the object may also be faulty.

This will be explained extensively later in the section on the Truth of Cessation. Because three kinds of mind are extinguished, it is called signlessness. For a practitioner who has newly entered the path, not all characteristics are faulty.

If one apprehends the characteristic of composure, the characteristic of exertion, the characteristic of equanimity, and the like, these are faultless. Moreover, nirvana is called the absence of dharmas, so this objection should not be made. As it is said, if one apprehends the characteristics of dharmas, there is no defilement; but if one apprehends characteristics that are provisional designations, afflictions arise.

Why? By apprehending the differentiating characteristics of enemies, loved ones, and the like, sorrow, joy, and so forth arise. From these can arise the faults of greed, anger, and the like.

Therefore, one should know that apprehending the characteristics of provisional dharmas is called perception.

CHAPTER 78: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FEELING IN THE SECTION ON THE SKANDHA OF FEELING WITHIN THE DISCUSSION OF THE TRUTH OF SUFFERING

Question: What is feeling?

Answer: Painful, pleasant, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

Question: What is called painful, what is called pleasant, and what is called neither painful nor pleasant?

Answer: These three kinds of feeling have no fixed characteristics. Why? The very same thing may either benefit body and mind, harm them, or do neither.

Answer: The object is indeterminate, but the feeling is not indeterminate. Why? The very same fire may at one time produce pleasure, at another time produce pain, and at another time produce neither pain nor pleasure. Once feeling arises from its conditions, it is determinate. Because the very same thing varies according to the occasion, it may be a cause of pleasure, a cause of pain, or a cause of neither pleasure nor pain.

Question: Under what circumstances does this object become a cause of pain, pleasure, and the like?

Answer: Depending on what can relieve pain, at that time the characteristic of pleasure arises. For example, when a person is afflicted by cold, the contact with heat can then produce the characteristic of pleasure.

Question: When this contact with heat becomes excessive, it can instead cause pain; how, then, is it pleasure? One should therefore know that pleasant feeling also does not exist.

Answer: It is only because of conventional names and characteristics that pleasant feeling exists; it does not exist in the ultimate sense. When this person desires warm contact, it is also beneficial; moreover, it stops the previous suffering, and at that moment the characteristic of pleasure arises therein. Apart from the previous suffering, this warm contact could not produce pleasure. Since, apart from the previous suffering, warm contact cannot produce pleasure, pleasure does not truly exist.

Question: You say that pleasure exists only because of names and characteristics. This is unreasonable. Why?

Because in the sutras the Buddha himself spoke of three kinds of feeling. If pleasure truly did not exist, how could he speak of three feelings? He also said that if form were definitely suffering, sentient beings would not become attached to it.

He further said, “What is the gratification in form? It is the joy and happiness that arise dependent upon form.” He also said, “Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it arises and pleasant while it remains, but painful when it ceases. Painful feeling is painful when it arises and painful while it remains, but pleasant when it ceases.

Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is known neither as painful nor as pleasant.” Moreover, pleasant feeling is the result of merit, while painful feeling is the result of wrongdoing. If pleasant feeling truly did not exist, there should be no feeling in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm. Yet this is not actually so.

It is also said that craving underlies pleasant feeling. If pleasant feeling did not exist, what would craving underlie? One should not say that craving underlies painful feeling.

Therefore, we know that pleasant feeling truly exists.

Answer: If pleasant feeling truly existed, one should be able to state what its characteristic is, yet in fact this cannot be stated. You should know that it is only differences within suffering that are designated as the characteristic of pleasure. All worlds, from the great hells below up to the Peak of Existence, bear the characteristic of suffering. Being oppressed by much suffering, beings conceive the characteristic of pleasure in what is less painful. For example, a person tormented by heat regards cool contact as pleasant. Therefore, all the sutras speak in this manner, and there is no contradiction.

Question: One might likewise say that the entire world is pleasure, because the perception of suffering arises where pleasure is slight. If that is not so, neither may one say that the perception of pleasure arises where suffering is slight.

Answer: The characteristic of painful feeling is coarse and evident, so one should not regard slight pleasure as suffering. Moreover, even slight pleasure does not have the characteristic of oppression. Why? Because no one is seen to raise his hands and cry aloud upon experiencing a little pleasure. Furthermore, pleasant feeling may also be called the characteristic of gradual cessation, just as the higher realms become progressively more quiescent and extinct. Thus, the claim that the perception of suffering arises where pleasure is slight is merely an assertion. There is, however, sound reason for saying that foolish ordinary beings mistakenly conceive pleasure where suffering is slight.

CHAPTER 79: THE SUFFERING OF CONDITIONED ACTIVITIES

All feelings are suffering. Clothing, food, and all such things are causes of suffering, not causes of pleasure. How is this known?

It is presently observed that when clothing, food, and other things increase beyond measure, suffering also increases; therefore, they are called causes of suffering. Moreover, the characteristics of such sufferings as pain in the hand can be indicated, but the characteristic of pleasure cannot be indicated. Furthermore, clothing, food, and other things serve only to cure ailments; for example, a person who is not thirsty derives no pleasure from drinking.

Again, when oppressed by one suffering, a person conceives another suffering as pleasure, just as someone who fears death regards another punishment as pleasant. Moreover, whips, clubs, knives, spears, and other causes and conditions of suffering invariably produce suffering, whereas the causes of pleasure are not like this. Furthermore, because all necessities ultimately become suffering, one should understand them by first possessing them and only later recognizing this fact, just as shoes gradually wear out.

Again, with respect to female beauty and the like, one first conceives pleasure; only after abandoning false thoughts does one perceive their faults. Female beauty and the like are also causes of suffering, withering, wasting away, and the arising of various illnesses. Therefore, one knows that they are not pleasurable.

Moreover, upon becoming free from sensual desire, one relinquishes all these objects. If they were truly pleasurable, why would one relinquish them? Again, whatever gives a person pleasure later causes that very same person mental suffering.

One should therefore know that it is not pleasure. Furthermore, the body is a field of suffering, not a field of pleasure. Just as grain is difficult to cultivate in a field while weeds grow easily, so in the field of the body various sufferings readily gather, whereas insubstantial pleasures arise only with difficulty.

Again, a person first forms the inverted notion of pleasure amid suffering and later becomes attached to it. If even a little true pleasure existed, this would not be called an inversion. Just as not even the slightest reality can be found in permanence, self, or purity, so it is with pleasure, for all are inversions.

Moreover, people give rise to thoughts of pleasure amid extremely painful circumstances, as when shifting a heavy burden from one shoulder to the other. One should therefore know that there is no pleasure. The Buddha also said in a sutra: “One should contemplate pleasure as suffering, contemplate suffering as an arrow piercing the heart, and contemplate neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling as impermanent, arising and ceasing from moment to moment.” If pleasure definitely existed, one should not contemplate it as suffering.

One should know that ordinary beings mistake suffering for pleasure. Therefore, the Buddha said that wherever an ordinary being conceives pleasure, you should contemplate it as suffering. Furthermore, these three kinds of feeling are all included within the truth of suffering.

If one of them were truly pleasure, why would it be included within the truth of suffering? Moreover, suffering is real, whereas the characteristic of pleasure is false. How is this known?

Because the mind that contemplates suffering can sever all fetters, whereas a mind delighting in pleasure cannot. Therefore, one should know that all feeling is suffering. Moreover, all things are causes of suffering, like hostile bandits.

There are two kinds of hostile bandits: some can inflict suffering immediately; others may at first show a little kindness but later harm people. All things are likewise: some may at first produce benefit but later turn around and cause harm. One should therefore know that they are all suffering.

Furthermore, sentient beings are never satisfied with what they desire, like those who drink salt water yet do not quench their thirst; therefore, this is suffering. Again, only when one seeks nothing and desires nothing can it be called pleasure; seeking should be called suffering. No one in the world is seen to be free from seeking.

Therefore, one should know that there is no pleasure.

CHAPTER 80: THE SUFFERING OF CHANGE

Question: Although you have used many causes and conditions to explain suffering, people in the world still crave pleasure and regard the attainment of what they desire as pleasure.

Answer: This has already been answered. Because ordinary beings are inverted, they mistake suffering for pleasure. Moreover, since they are harmed by ignorance, how can they be trusted?

Even the attainment of what is desired should be contemplated as suffering. Why? Because all such things are subject to impermanence, and when they decay and perish, suffering arises.

As the Buddha said in a sutra: “Humans and devas love form, delight in form, and crave form. When that form decays and perishes, they experience immense grief and suffering. Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise.” Because they are all subject to decay and destruction, one should know that they are all suffering.

Furthermore, upon experiencing illusory pleasure, a person gives rise to attachment; because of this attachment, all the troubles involved in guarding and preserving it then arise. Therefore, one should contemplate pleasure as suffering; this is far superior to merely contemplating suffering. Again, pleasure is the gateway through which suffering enters.

Because the mind craves pleasure, the three poisons give rise to various unwholesome karmic deeds, through which beings fall into the hells and other evil destinies and undergo all kinds of affliction. One should therefore know that pleasure is the root of suffering. Moreover, every union bears the characteristic of separation.

When separated from what one loves, one undergoes extremely grievous suffering; is this not caused by attachment? One should therefore know that enjoying pleasure brings suffering even greater than undergoing pain. Furthermore, pleasurable objects are produced only to deceive sentient beings and cause them to fall into various sufferings, like an animal eating poisoned bait or a fish swallowing a hook, each thereby bringing harm upon itself.

Pleasurable objects are likewise and should therefore be contemplated as suffering. Again, although one obtains a little gratification from pleasant feeling, it brings immeasurable faults and dangers, just as birds and fish obtain very little savor yet encounter very great peril. Therefore, it should be contemplated as suffering.

Moreover, pleasant feeling is the source from which afflictions arise. Why? Because, through craving the body, one comes to desire necessities; because of this desire, anger and other afflictions arise one after another.

Moreover, pleasant feeling is the root of samsara. Why is this? Because craving arises from pleasure.

As stated in the sutra: “Craving is the root of suffering.” Furthermore, whatever activities beings undertake, none are not for the sake of pleasure. Therefore, it is called the root of suffering. Moreover, pleasant feeling is harder to cast off than fetters and shackles.

In samsara, one is bound by craving for pleasure. Why is this? Because, through craving for pleasure, one cannot escape samsara.

Furthermore, this pleasant feeling constantly gives rise to suffering: while seeking it, one suffers because of desire; when it is lost, one suffers because of longing; and even when it is obtained, one suffers because one is never satiated, just as the great ocean swallows all rivers. This too is suffering. Furthermore, pleasant feeling is a cause of not becoming weary.

Why is this? Because, when beings seek the causes of pleasure, no matter how much hardship and danger they undergo, they regard it as pleasure, and thus their minds do not grow weary. Therefore, the wise should contemplate it as suffering.

Furthermore, pleasant feeling is the cause of the arising of various kinds of karma. Why is this? Because, through craving for pleasure, one can produce wholesome karma, and through craving for present pleasure, one produces unwholesome karma.

It is also the cause of assuming every kind of body. Why is this? Because pleasure gives rise to craving, and because of craving one assumes a body.

Furthermore, pleasant feeling is opposed to nirvana. Why is this? Because beings are attached to the pleasures of samsara and therefore take no delight in nirvana.

Furthermore, those who have not yet become free from desire delight in this pleasant feeling; because they delight in it, suffering arises. Thus one should know that pleasant feeling is the root of all suffering. Furthermore, the sutra speaks of two pursuits that are difficult to end: first, the pursuit of acquisition; second, the pursuit of life.

Seeking all manner of things according to one’s desires is called the pursuit of acquisition; seeking to remain alive in order to enjoy those things is called the pursuit of life. Both pursuits are rooted in pleasant feeling. Therefore, the wise should end what is difficult to end—that is, they should contemplate the characteristics of pleasant feeling in accordance with reality.

Furthermore, attachment to the savor of pleasant feeling can defile those who have not attained freedom from desire. Those of great wisdom regard it as far more difficult to end than painful feeling. Furthermore, attachment to the savor of pleasant feeling is the cause of craving and the other afflictions; if there were no pleasant feeling, there would be no craving.

Furthermore, attachment to the savor of pleasant feeling can be ended only by true wisdom. Why is this? Because worldly kinds of wisdom can abandon a lower level only by attachment to the savor of a higher level.

Thus one should know that pleasant feeling is far harder to relinquish than painful feeling. Furthermore, the minds of beings are bound to the place where they are born; even animals remain attached to and cherish their physical bodies. One should therefore know that this is all because of attachment to the savor of pleasant feeling.

Thus pleasant feeling should be contemplated as suffering.

CHAPTER 81: DISCERNMENT OF THE THREE FEELINGS

Question: It has already been understood that everything is suffering. Now, on account of what distinctions are there three feelings?

Answer: There is in fact only one painful feeling, but because of differences in time, there are three kinds. That which can torment and harm is called pain. After being tormented and harmed, one seeks another pain to arrest the former pain. Because of this seeking, that great pain gains a slight respite, and this is then called pleasure. When sorrow and joy are not distinguished, and one neither hopes nor seeks, this is called neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

Question: Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling should not be called a feeling. Why is this? Because pain and pleasure can be felt, whereas neither pain nor pleasure cannot be felt.

Answer: A person is affected by three kinds of contact: painful contact, pleasant contact, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant contact. Since the cause exists, one should know that the result exists. For example, when a person who is extremely hot encounters cold contact, it is experienced as pleasure; when that person encounters hot contact, it is experienced as pain; and when the contact is neither cold nor hot, it is experienced as neither pain nor pleasure.

Therefore, one knows that this neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling exists. Perhaps you think that neither-painful-nor-pleasant contact cannot produce feeling. This is unreasonable.

Why is this? Because when a person experiences this contact that is neither hot nor cold, the person apprehends the object being cognized; this itself is called feeling. How can you say that it does not exist?

Furthermore, among objects there are three different kinds of persons: enemies, intimates, and those who are neither enemies nor intimates. An intimate gives rise to pleasure, an enemy gives rise to sorrow, and one who is neither enemy nor intimate gives rise to neither pleasure nor sorrow. Therefore, one knows that because of differences in perception, these three kinds of feeling exist.

Because objects differ, these three kinds of perception arise. Furthermore, objects are of three kinds: beneficial, harmful, and neither of the foregoing. There are the pleasant, the unpleasant, and those that are neither of the foregoing.

There are also objects of craving, objects of anger, and objects of delusion. There are those that cause joy, those that do not cause joy, and those that are neither of the foregoing. There are the fruits of merit, the fruits of wrongdoing, and imperturbable fruits.

In relation to these objects, the three feelings arise accordingly. Therefore, one knows that this neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling exists. Furthermore, that which accords with the mind is called pleasant feeling; that which opposes the mind is called painful feeling; and that which neither opposes nor accords with it is called neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

Furthermore, there are the eight worldly conditions: gain and loss, disgrace and honor, praise and blame, pain and pleasure. For ordinary people, loss and the other three conditions are opposed to the mind, while gain and the other three conditions are regarded as agreeable. There must certainly be noble ones free from desire who can relinquish both.

This relinquishment is called neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Therefore, it is not the case that this feeling does not exist.

Question: If these three feelings exist because of such causes and conditions as contact, then all mental activities should be called feeling. Why is this? Because whatever mental activities occur within the body are all painful, pleasant, or neither painful nor pleasant.

Answer: Indeed, all mental activities are called feeling. Why is this? Because the sutra speaks of “the eighteen mental activities.” Here, it is only a single mind that has eighteen distinctions: six activities of joy, six activities of sorrow, and six activities of equanimity.

Because of differences in perception, there are the painful division, the pleasant division, and the equanimous division. Thus one should know that no mental activity is not feeling. Furthermore, the sutra states: “All feelings are suffering.” One should therefore know that all mental activities within the body are suffering.

It is also said that if form arises, suffering arises. Why is form called suffering? Because it is a cause of suffering.

One should therefore know that objects and the faculties are all capable of producing suffering. Thus all mental activities are called feeling. Because conditioned activity is suffering, all conditioned phenomena should be contemplated as suffering.

These are the three kinds of suffering, all arising from the conjunction of various conditions. Because they cease from moment to moment, noble ones contemplate them as suffering. Therefore, all mental activities are called feeling.

Question: Are undefiled feelings also suffering?

Answer: They too are suffering. Why is this? Because the feelings of undefiled noble ones are also successively relinquished.

From the first dhyana onward, until the realization of the cessation of everything, all involve suffering. Furthermore, what difference is there between the pleasure of defiled dhyana and the pleasure of undefiled dhyana? Whatever causes the defiled dhyanas to be suffering also causes the undefiled dhyanas to be suffering.

Furthermore, when noble ones abide in an undefiled mind, they are profoundly disenchanted with everything. Thus, when an undefiled mind arises, disenchantment arises, as though an eyelash were piercing the eye. Ordinary people do not understand this and all take suffering to be pleasure.

The wisdom of noble ones is exceedingly subtle; therefore, their disenchantment with and detachment from the Realm of the Summit of Existence is greater than ordinary people’s aversion to the Realm of Desire. Thus undefiled suffering may be compared with defiled suffering. Furthermore, when noble ones attain an undefiled mind, they direct themselves solely toward nirvana.

Why is this? Because at that time they clearly perceive all conditioned phenomena. If undefiled feeling were pleasure, they should delight in it and should not again give rise to a mind directed toward nirvana.

Question: If all mental activities are called feeling, how can such distinct mental factors still exist?

Answer: Even within a single feeling, distinctions exist because its modes of activity in relation to objects differ. The various mental factors likewise act differently in relation to their objects. When consciousness cognizes an object, this activity alone is called mind.

As previously explained, when all these phenomena occur within the body, they are called feelings because of such distinctions as being beneficial. Furthermore, they are called feelings chiefly when the mind is capable of arousing afflictions. As stated in the sutra: “In pleasant feeling, craving lies latent; in painful feeling, anger lies latent; and in neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, ignorance lies latent.” Therefore, in relation to objects, such phenomena as discriminative perception and joy are called feelings.

Why is this? Because at that time they are capable of producing the afflictions.

Question: If within each and every feeling one is driven by these three afflictions, why is it definitively said that in pleasant feeling one is driven by craving?

Answer: In painful feeling, could one be driven by craving? Delusion operates everywhere because of its great power. Regarding what is painful, one conceives it as pleasant because one fails to see and know things as they truly are; only when pain arises does anger arise.

Because neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is subtle, one is unaware of craving and anger. Why is this? Because such a person forms neither a conception of pain nor of pleasure regarding it.

Failing to see and know things as they truly are, that person is driven only by delusion. Moreover, when craving and anger do not manifest regarding an object that is neither painful nor pleasant, ordinary people suppose that they have overcome that object. Therefore, the Buddha said: “You have not overcome this object; craving and anger do not manifest only because you have not yet discerned it.” As a sutra says: “When an ordinary person experiences equanimity regarding form, that equanimity still depends upon form.

If this object enhances the self or causes it harm, craving or anger arises once again.” Thus, one should know that the object has not yet been overcome. Moreover, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling has the characteristic of quiescence, like the formless concentrations. Because it is quiescent, the afflictions manifest subtly, and ordinary people conceive the state arising therein to be liberation.

Therefore, the Buddha said that one is driven therein by ignorance. Moreover, because the object has not yet been discerned, its pain and pleasure have not been comprehended. If one recognizes the pain or pleasure in this object, one then understands it clearly; at that time, craving or anger arises.

Question: If, upon discerning this object, one forms a conception of pain or pleasure, then only painful and pleasant feelings are necessary, are they not?

Answer: At times, regarding that object, this person’s mind gives rise to neither pleasure nor pain. Therefore, there are not only pain and pleasure. As stated before, although all are painful, there are three distinct kinds.

Question: You say that upon discerning this object, one again forms a conception of pleasure. How can it be discerned, since it cannot be discerned by ignorance?

Answer: Because that person previously apprehended a characteristic in relation to this object, regarding this object that person may be driven by ignorance or may be driven by craving and anger.

Question: Delusion arises only within pain and pleasure. As a sutra says: “This person does not know as they truly are the origination, cessation, gratification, danger, escape, and so forth of feelings. Because of not knowing, it is said that within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling one is driven by the latent tendency of ignorance.” Thus, the latent tendency of ignorance arises only within pain and pleasure, not within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, does it not?

Answer: This sutra itself says that because one does not know as they truly are the origination, cessation, gratification, and so forth of feelings, one is driven by the latent tendency of ignorance within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

Question: Although this statement is present, its meaning is unreasonable. How could failing to know the origination, cessation, and so forth of pain and pleasure cause one to be driven by the latent tendency of ignorance within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling? Why? Because in regard to each phenomenon, it is the failure to know that phenomenon that drives one. Therefore, the sutra should say: “Because this person does not know the origination and so forth of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, that person is driven by the latent tendency of ignorance within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.” Otherwise, does ignorance not drive one within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling?

Answer: This person gives rise to three kinds of mind regarding neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Because of conceiving it as quiescent and conceiving it as neither painful nor pleasant, one gives rise to a mind that is neither painful nor pleasant. If one apprehends its characteristics through wrong knowledge, a pleasant mind arises; if one apprehends the gratification of a higher stage, a painful mind arises.

Therefore, the sutra speaks extensively of the various feelings. Why? Because all feelings are governed by ignorance.

This neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling has three distinct kinds according to the circumstances. Moreover, if one has not yet penetrated the truth of origination, pain, and so forth, then within painful feeling one forms a conception of pleasure and also a conception of neither pain nor pleasure. Therefore, it is said: Because one does not know the origination and so forth of feelings, one is driven by the latent tendency of ignorance.

Yet within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one is driven by the latent tendency of ignorance to a greater extent.

CHAPTER 82: QUESTIONS ON FEELING

Question: A sutra says: “When this person experiences a pleasant feeling, that person knows as it truly is: ‘I am experiencing this pleasant feeling.’” What does it mean to know feeling as it truly is? Past and future feelings cannot be apprehended, while a present feeling cannot know itself, can it?

Answer: This sutra speaks with reference to the person who experiences the feeling; therefore, there is no fault. Moreover, pleasant and other feelings arise in the body and can be taken as objects by the mind, so there is likewise no fault. Furthermore, pleasure and the other terms are applied to the instruments of pleasure; in the world, too, the effect is sometimes named in reference to its cause. Moreover, this person first experiences a pleasant feeling and only afterward apprehends its characteristic; hence it is said that while experiencing pleasant feeling, one knows it as it truly is.

Question: Is it because there is one who experiences that it is called feeling, or is that which can be experienced itself called feeling? If the experiencer is called feeling, then feeling would be distinct from pleasure and the rest. Yet the sutra speaks of pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. If that which can be experienced is called feeling, who experiences it? Is it because it is experienced that it is called feeling?

Answer: Pleasure is spoken of in relation to an object, as when something is said to be half painful and half pleasant. Therefore, because the object is discerned, it is called a pleasant feeling. Moreover, because sentient beings experience this feeling, that which can be experienced is called feeling.

Question: Sentient beings are not called feeling, so why does the sutra say that feeling experiences?

Answer: Such is the meaning of the term; where there is a characteristic, there is an activity. Within conventional designation, the characteristics of pain, pleasure, and neither pain nor pleasure are present in the body, and the mind is capable of discerning them; therefore, it is said that feeling experiences.

Question: A sutra says that, among feelings, one should contemplate feeling in accordance with feeling. How, then, does the practitioner form conceptions of pain, pleasure, and neither pain nor pleasure? Does this person not now form a conception that they are all painful?

Answer: This person has not yet realized that all are painful and is merely mindful of the three kinds of feeling.

Question: If the four foundations of mindfulness are cultivated by means of mental consciousness, how can the body be said to be pleasant?

Answer: With regard to every feeling, mindfulness should be established thus: “This body is pleasant; this mind is pleasant.” Moreover, when cultivating the foundations of mindfulness, if a conception of pleasure arises in the body and mindfulness is established upon it, it is called bodily pleasure.

Question: If all feelings are mental phenomena, why speak of bodily feeling?

Answer: This is taught on account of non-Buddhists. Non-Buddhists claim that feelings depend upon a Self; therefore, the Buddha taught that feelings depend upon the body and mind.

Question: What is bodily feeling?

Answer: Feeling produced in dependence upon the five faculties is called bodily feeling. Feeling produced in dependence upon the sixth faculty is called mental feeling.

Question: How is feeling called defiled or pure?

Answer: The various afflictions are called defilements. A feeling governed by these afflictions is called defiled, while a feeling not governed by afflictions is called pure.

Question: Why is painful feeling called pure?

Answer: When a person experiences painful feeling in order to eliminate the afflictions, it is called pure. Moreover, because painful feeling is opposed to the afflictions, it is called pure.

Question: Having already spoken of the defiled and the pure, why further speak of dependence upon craving and dependence upon escape? Craving itself is an affliction, and escape itself is purity.

Answer: Defilement was previously explained in summary; now craving is separately identified as the cause of defilement. As a sutra says: “There is defiled joy, pure joy, and joy within purity.” Defiled joy is joy produced by the five sensual pleasures. Pure joy is the joy of the first dhyana. Joy within purity is the joy of the second dhyana. If feeling is solely directed toward nirvana, this is dependence upon escape. Therefore, it is stated separately.

Question: Among the five faculties, painful and pleasant feelings are each divided into two; why is neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not likewise divided?

Answer: Sorrow and joy arise only through conceptual discrimination, whereas pain and pleasure do not necessarily arise through conceptual discrimination. In neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, conceptual discrimination is subtle; therefore, it is not divided into two.

Question: In the third dhyana, what does mental consciousness experience that it is called pleasure rather than joy?

Answer: This pleasure is deep and abundant, pervading both body and mind; therefore, it is called pleasure. Joy can pervade only the mind and cannot pervade the body. Thus, with reference to its distinction from joy, the Buddha said that in the third dhyana the body experiences pleasure.

Question: Among these three feelings, which can give rise to the deepest and most powerful afflictions?

Answer: Some masters of the treatise say that pleasant feeling can give rise to them. Why is this? As previously explained, because the causes and conditions are not destroyed, one undergoes great suffering.

Other masters of the treatise say that painful feeling can give rise to them. Why is this? Because sentient beings are oppressed by suffering, they seek pleasure and thereby arouse many afflictions.

Moreover, although pleasures are many, even a little suffering can overcome them. For example, while a person is fully enjoying the five sensual pleasures, if bitten by flies or mosquitoes, that person immediately experiences suffering. The pleasures of sights and the other five sensual pleasures are not like this.

Again, the pleasure of having a hundred sons alive cannot equal the suffering caused by the death of a single son. Furthermore, within samsara there are many manifestations of painful feeling, whereas pleasant feeling is not so. Why is this?

Many sentient beings dwell in the three evil destinies, while few are born among gods and humans. Moreover, without any effort, suffering arises naturally; yet even when one strives to seek pleasure, it may or may not be obtained. It is like coarse grass growing naturally in a field, whereas rice seedlings do not.

Furthermore, grave, blameworthy karma is produced because of painful feeling. Why is this? Because within painful feeling the latent tendency of anger operates.

As stated in the sutra: “Anger is a grave offense.” Still other masters of the treatise say that neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling can give rise to them. Why is this? Because within it operates the latent tendency of delusion, and delusion is the root of all afflictions.

Moreover, this feeling is subtle, so the afflictions within it are difficult to perceive. Furthermore, this feeling is the intrinsic condition of sentient beings, while pain and pleasure are adventitious. This feeling also pervades the three realms, whereas the other two feelings do not.

Moreover, this feeling is a cause of long life: through craving this feeling, one attains a lifespan of eighty thousand great kalpas, during which one undergoes the suffering inherent in the skandhas. Furthermore, this feeling is contrary to nirvana. Why is this?

Within it, one mistakenly conceives the characteristic of quiescent cessation—the characteristic of nirvana—and thus can no longer attain true nirvana. Moreover, this feeling can be transcended only by relying upon the noble path, as it is said that liberation is attained through freedom from its nature. Painful and pleasant feelings can also be transcended by relying upon worldly paths.

Furthermore, this feeling is severed only at the utmost limit of samsara, when continuity itself is severed. Therefore, it can give rise to the deepest and most powerful afflictions.

CHAPTER 83: THE FIVE FACULTIES OF FEELING

Question: Where is the pleasure faculty found? And where, through to the equanimity faculty, are the others found?

Answer: Pain and pleasure are found in the body, wherever a body is obtained, up to the fourth dhyana. The other three faculties are found in the mind, wherever a mind is obtained, up to the summit of existence.

Question: As stated in the sutra: “In the first dhyana the faculty of sorrow ceases; in the third dhyana the faculty of joy ceases; in the fourth dhyana the faculty of pleasure ceases; and only in the attainment of cessation does the faculty of equanimity cease.” Therefore, is your statement not unreasonable?

Answer: If one accepts this sutra, then the faculty of pain ought to exist in the first dhyana. Yet according to your doctrine, the faculty of pain truly does not exist in the first dhyana. Therefore, this sutra is not worthy of belief.

Question: For those who deeply cultivate wholesome dharmas in the Form Realm and Formless Realm, surely there should be no sorrow or pain?

Answer: All three realms are suffering. Although the two higher realms lack coarse suffering, subtle suffering is still present. How is this known?

In discussing the fourth dhyana, four bodily postures are mentioned. Since bodily postures exist there, suffering must exist in all of them. Moreover, in the Form Realm there are eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, and body-consciousness.

The feelings present within these consciousnesses are called pain and pleasure. Because one seeks to change from one bodily posture to another, it is known that suffering is present. Furthermore, the sutra asks: “What is the gratification in form?

It is the pleasure and joy that arise dependent upon form. What is the danger in form? It is that all forms are characterized by impermanence, suffering, and disintegration.” Since form exists in the Form Realm, there is a mind that delights in its gratification and a mind that recognizes its danger.

Therefore, it is known that pain and pleasure exist there. Moreover, practitioners both delight in and abandon the various dhyanas and samadhis: they certainly delight in them because of conditions associated with pleasant feeling, and abandon them because of conditions associated with painful feeling. Therefore, it is known that pain and pleasure exist there.

Furthermore, the Buddha said that sounds and the like are thorns of the first dhyana; applied and sustained thought are thorns of the second dhyana; and so forth, until perception and feeling are said to be thorns of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. “Thorn” has the meaning of suffering. Thus it is known that suffering exists throughout.

Moreover, all five skandhas are called suffering. Affliction and harm themselves constitute suffering. Just as the Desire Realm is suffering because beings undergo affliction and harm, so too beings in the two higher realms undergo affliction and harm; why, then, would those realms not be suffering?

Just as eight karmic activities, including illness and the rest, are spoken of in the Desire Realm, the same eight karmic activities are also spoken of in the Form Realm and Formless Realm; why, then, would there be no suffering? Moreover, in the Form Realm it is said that radiant light varies in superiority and inferiority. Thus it is known that karma in the Form Realm also differs.

Because karma differs, there must certainly be painful karmic results. Furthermore, the sutra states that afflictions such as jealousy exist there. For example, a Brahma Lord told the other Brahma gods: “This place alone is eternal; you must not go to the ascetic Gautama.” There was also a Brahma god who came to challenge the Buddha with questions.

Moreover, the sutra states that unwholesome dharmas are severed only upon entering the fourth dhyana. The sutra also states that the affliction of wrong view exists there. These afflictions are unwholesome and ought to bring painful results; why, then, would there be no suffering?

Furthermore, some masters of the treatise say that all afflictions are unwholesome. How, then, could painful feeling not exist there?

Moreover, the sutra says: “The gods delight in form, take pleasure in form, crave form, and cling to form.” Because these gods delight in, take pleasure in, crave, and cling to form, when that form disintegrates, sorrow and suffering arise in them. The same applies through to consciousness. Thus it is known that all who have not become free from desire experience sorrow and joy.

Furthermore, joy arises dependent upon conditions for craving; when one is separated from those conditions for craving, sorrow certainly arises. What power could ignorant ordinary beings possess that would enable them to encounter conditions for craving without experiencing joy, or to lose them without experiencing sorrow? As stated in the sutra: “Only one who has attained the path displays neither sorrow nor joy when life is about to end.” Thus it is known that sorrow and joy constantly accompany all ordinary beings.

Moreover, the Buddha said: “Neither sorrowful nor joyful, one-pointedly cultivating equanimity—this should be the virtue of an arhat.” Furthermore, the six practices of equanimity are practiced only by noble ones, not by ordinary beings. When ordinary beings sometimes cultivate equanimity, it is because they are not yet able to discern the conditions before them. As stated in the sutra: “Whatever equanimity ordinary beings possess toward form is entirely dependent upon form; their craving for form has not been abandoned.” Thus it is known that ordinary beings possess no true equanimity of mind.

Moreover, the sutra says: “Within pleasant feeling, craving operates.” If there were no pleasant feeling there, where would the latent tendency of craving operate? You may perhaps say that the latent tendency of craving operates only within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Yet nowhere in the sutras is such a statement found.

Furthermore, in the higher stages, the more one delights in quiescent cessation, the lighter and more at ease the body and mind become. It is said, for example, that a certain god remains seated for a thousand kalpas at a time. If there were suffering, practitioners could not remain long in any bodily posture.

As stated in the sutra: “Sitting peacefully for seven days, one enjoys the bliss of liberation.” Moreover, supreme delight and pleasure exist there. As stated in the sutra: “One who experiences delight then experiences pleasure.” Thus it is known that pleasure exists in all stages. You may perhaps say that delight is one thing and pleasant feeling another.

This is unreasonable. Whatever benefits the body is called pleasure. Therefore, delight and pleasure are not distinct from pleasant feeling.

Question: If pain, pleasure, sorrow, and joy definitely exist in the higher realms, how can this accord with the Dhyana Sutra?

Answer: If that sutra contradicts and impairs the characteristics of the Dharma, what fault would there be in setting it aside? Moreover, therein the pleasure of tranquil conduct is not manifest and cannot give rise to coarse craving or anger. Therefore, it is said that there is neither suffering nor pleasure.

Furthermore, therein suffering and pleasure are subtle and indistinct: there are none of the various sufferings caused by knives and clubs, nor the various sorrows caused by the loss of loved ones. Therefore, it is called being without sorrow or joy. It is like saying that in the Form Realm there is neither cold nor heat.

The four great elements also exist therein; how, then, can it be said that there is neither cold nor heat? It is also like saying that the beings in the third dhyana have one body and one characteristic, though distinctions in the radiance of their complexions also exist therein. As it is said, if a practitioner of meditation cannot properly eliminate sleepiness and frivolity, the radiance of the complexion will not be pure.

Again, one of little wisdom is called devoid of wisdom. It is also like people in the world calling food unsalted when it contains only a little salt. In the same way, because sorrow and joy are not manifest there, they are said not to exist.

Moreover, you say that there is no discursive awareness therein. In the sutra, the Buddha said that perception is a cause and condition for discursive awareness. Since perception exists therein, why should discursive awareness not exist?

Therefore, one should know that the dharma of discursive awareness remains even up to the Summit of Existence as coarse discursive awareness; hence it is said that it is extinguished only upon entering the second dhyana.

Therefore, suffering, pleasure, and the rest also exist in the two higher realms.

– End of the Skandha of Feeling.

CHAPTER ON DISCUSSION OF VOLITION IN THE SKANDHA OF FORMATIONS, IN THE SECTION ON THE TRUTH OF SUFFERING, NO. 84

The sutra says that volition is intention and belongs to the skandha of formations.

Question: What is intention?

Answer: Aspiring and seeking constitute intention. As the sutra says: “One intends what is low, seeks what is low, and aspires to what is low.”

Question: How is it known that “seeking” is called intention?

Answer: As the sutra says: “Because it initiates activity, it is called formation.” The activity initiated by the skandha of feeling is called seeking. As the sutra says: “All initiated activity depends upon craving.” Again, the sutra says: “It is like a sheaf of barley placed at a crossroads. Six men come and thresh it, and then a seventh man comes and threshes it further.

What do the bhiksus think? Has it been thoroughly softened?” “It has been softened, Blessed One!” The Buddha said: “A foolish person is likewise. He is constantly beaten by the six fields of contact.

When beaten in this way, he intends a subsequent body; this is what it means to become thoroughly softened.” One should know that seeking is itself intention. It is also said that the nutriment of mental intention should be contemplated as a mass of fire. Why is fire used as a simile?

Because this person seeks a subsequent body, and the subsequent body is like fire, for it constantly gives rise to various sufferings. Again, the sutra says: “The self is precisely the locus of agitation and also of conceptual proliferation; initiated activity depends upon craving. Wherever there is a self, there is the agitation of intention and conceptual proliferation, and initiated activity depends upon craving.” If a dharma initiates activity, one should know that seeking is itself intention.

It is also said: “If a child has cultivated a wholesome mind from an early age, can he initiate evil karma because he intends evil karma?” “He cannot, Blessed One!” The meaning is that seeking and desiring constitute the production of karma. It is also said that karma is intention and what is done after intending. Here, intention is mental karma, while what is done after intending is bodily and verbal karma.

“After intending” means “after seeking.” Again, the Heli Sutra says: “The Nirgrantha’s son abstained from cold water and accepted hot water. When he was about to die, he sought cold water but ultimately failed to obtain it and died, giving rise to the thought of aspiring to heaven.” Thus, he was reborn because he intended cold. Therefore, one should know that seeking is itself intention.

Question: You say that seeking is intention. Yet this is the characteristic of craving, not of intention. Why?

Because the Sutra on Causes and Conditions says: “What a foolish person seeks is precisely craving.” Again, the Great Causes Sutra says: “Because of craving, there is seeking, and so forth.” Again, the sutra says: “One who suffers greatly seeks; one who is happy does not seek.” It is also said that if a person desires to practice the five sensual pleasures, desire itself is seeking.... It is further said that because craving is the cause and condition, there is appropriation.

First one seeks, and afterward one appropriates; thus, seeking is craving. Therefore, your claim that seeking is intention is also unreasonable. Why?

Because the Heli Sutra says: “If one produces karma without intending it, that karma is not grave.” “Without intending” means without knowing beforehand. People in the world also take knowing to be intending, as when they say: “Who is wise? It is one who can do this deed.

Who is a person with intention? It is one who will do this deed.” The meaning of these words is “a wise person.” Therefore, one should know that knowing is itself intention.

Answer: Aspiration is called accumulation. Because aspiration is one part of desire, it is called intention, as when a person makes an aspiration, saying: “In a future life, I shall obtain such a body.”

Question: If aspiration is the part of desire called intention, then there can be no undefiled intention. Moreover, intention is a cause of craving. As the sutra says: “If one knows and sees the nutriment of mental intention, one thereby knows and sees the abandonment of the three kinds of craving.” Therefore, one should know that intention is a cause of craving.

Answer: You say there can be no undefiled intention. I also do not say that there is undefiled intention. Why?

Because it has the characteristic of initiating activity, it is called intention. Undefiled dharmas do not have the characteristic of initiating activity. Therefore, intention is initiated activity and is not the Dharma of Cessation.

Moreover, you say that intention is a cause of craving. This is also unreasonable. Why?

Because intention is the fruit of craving and is also one part of craving; it is not a cause of craving. Because the fruit is abandoned, the cause is said to be abandoned; that is, when the nutriment of mental intention is abandoned, the three kinds of craving are abandoned. The causes and conditions of formations and the rest are all answered in this way.

Therefore, one should know that intention is a part of craving. Craving is of two kinds, cause and fruit: the cause is called craving, and the fruit is called seeking. Seeking is itself intention.

Question: If, at the stage of cause, it is called craving, and, when it produces its fruit, it is called intention, then intention is not a part of craving. Why? Because a dharma is said to have one characteristic as a cause and another characteristic as a fruit. Therefore, one should know that intention is not a part of craving. As the Sutra on Causes and Conditions says: “What a foolish person seeks is precisely craving, while what a person driven by craving does is precisely karma.” Therefore, because intention conforms to the characteristic of karma, it differs from craving. Moreover, seeking arises from greed, and seeking is itself intention. Therefore, greed and craving are causes of intention.

Answer: I have already said that intention is a part of craving. A part of craving is itself craving. Craving when it first arises is called greed; after greed has arisen, it is called seeking. Moreover, you speak of aspiration. This is unreasonable. Why? Because aspiration is one part of intention. The preceding aspiration is called karma, and afterward the karma is dedicated.

Question: Are intention and mind the same or different?

Answer: Mind is itself intention. As the Dhammapada says: “When deeds and words are performed with an evil mind, all receive the fruit of suffering. With a wholesome mind, it is likewise.” Therefore, one should know that mind is itself intention.

If mind were not intention, what would mental karma be? Mental karma is the mind’s activity in relation to its object. Therefore, intention is itself mind.

Although the general characteristic has already been stated—that mental activity is intention—this intention is spoken of chiefly in relation to the wholesome and the unwholesome. This intention has many divisions: when a person seeks good or evil for those beings, it is then called intention; when the thing sought has not yet been obtained, it is then called seeking; when one seeks a subsequent body, it is then called aspiration.

Therefore, one should know that the single factor of intention is designated by many different names.

CHAPTER ON CONTACT, NO. 85

Consciousness functioning in relation to an object is called contact. It is said that contact is the conjunction of three factors, but this is not the characteristic of contact. Why? Because the faculty does not reach the object. Therefore, the faculty and the object are not conjoined. Because these three factors are capable of apprehending the object, they are called a conjunction.

Question: There is a distinct mental factor called contact. Why is this so? Because among the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination it is said: “With contact as condition, feeling arises.” It is also said that contact serves as the cause for feeling, perception, formations, and the rest.

If this dharma did not exist, how could it serve as a cause? Therefore, one should know that there is this mental factor called contact. Moreover, the Discourse on the Six Sixes speaks of the six kinds of contact.

Again, the sutras say: “One should contemplate the contacts rooted in ignorance.” If the various causes merely constitute a provisional dharma, there would be no need to speak separately of that provisional dharma. Moreover, the sutras describe two kinds of contact: first, contact that is the conjunction of three things; second, contact arising because of the conjunction of three things. One should therefore know that contact is of two kinds: one possessing its own substance and the other a provisional designation.

Just as a sun-crystal, cow dung, and the other condition are distinct from fire; a moon-crystal is distinct from water; and earth and the other conditions are distinct from a sprout—what fault would there be in saying that contact is likewise distinct from the eye and the other faculties? Again, just as an assembly of bhiksus is not distinct from the bhiksus; the conjunction of the skandhas is not distinct from the skandhas; the conjunction of two trees is not distinct from the two trees; the joining of two hands is not distinct from the two hands; and the conjunction of illnesses is not distinct from the illnesses—contact is likewise not distinct from the eye and the other constituents.

What fault would there be in this?

Answer: I have already said that when the mind apprehends an object, this is called contact. Therefore, when the mind acts as a cause giving rise to consciousness, only afterward do feeling and the other dharmas arise. The Discourse on the Six Sixes also says that this is then called contact.

This accords with reason. Moreover, we do not accept those two kinds of contact. It is always taught that the conjunction of three things is called contact.

Even if those two kinds of contact were taught, that scripture should be entirely rejected, because it contradicts the characteristics of dharmas. Therefore, citing that scripture does not constitute a valid reason. Moreover, if this contact were distinct as water is from fire, its activity should also be distinct; yet in reality no activity separate from the three constituents can be observed.

Therefore, one should know that this contact is not distinct from those three things. Again, if contact were a mental factor, it would differ from the other mental factors. Why?

Because contact is the contact of the various mental factors with their objects; the others do not arise because contact serves as their condition. Therefore, it is not a mental factor.

Question: Because contact is especially predominant, contact serves as a condition, whereas the mental factors do not serve as conditions for contact—just as feeling conditions craving, but craving does not condition feeling. Is this not so?

Answer: What distinctive characteristic does contact possess that the other mental factors lack? You must state its characteristic, yet in truth it cannot be stated. Therefore, this is not a valid reason.

Feeling occurs earlier and craving later; thus, feeling conditions craving, rather than craving conditioning feeling. Moreover, if contact were a distinct mental factor, its characteristic would have to be stated; but in reality it cannot be stated. One should therefore know that it is not distinct.

Furthermore, within the Buddha’s teaching the term “contact” is also used, as when it is said: “If suffering and affliction come into contact with a person’s body.” It is also said: “When experiencing pleasant contact, do not become heedless; when experiencing painful contact, do not become angry.” Here, among these feelings, the designation “contact” is used. Again, the Buddha said to a ghost whose hairs were sharp like arrows: “Your touch is rough and abrasive; you should not draw near the body.” Similarly, people in the world say that contact with fire is pleasant; they also use “contact” to mean eating, and they speak of touching with the hand.

All these usages apply the term “contact” to matters cognized by bodily consciousness. Elsewhere it is also said that a blind person does not come into contact with visible forms. Thus, the term “contact” is also used in relation to visible forms and other objects.

Because the designation “contact” is provisionally used and has no fixed meaning, there is no distinct mental factor corresponding to it. If contact were a mental factor, this would conflict with the characteristic of contact. Why?

Because the Buddha taught that the conjunction of three things is called contact. One should therefore know that there is in truth no distinct mental factor. Again, any dharma that reaches the body is called contact.

Furthermore, only when the mind is capable of serving as a cause for feeling and the other mental factors is it called contact.

CHAPTER 86: MINDFULNESS

The mind’s activation is called mindfulness. Because this mindfulness has the characteristic of activation, from moment to moment it can give rise to another state of mind. It is also said that the characteristic of mindfulness is its capacity to accomplish a task. As stated in the sutra: “If the internal ayatana of the eye is unimpaired and the external ayatana of visible form is present, but there is no mindfulness therein capable of giving rise to another state of mind, then eye-consciousness does not arise.”

Question: Does the cognition of every consciousness arise through the power of mindfulness?

Answer: No. Why? Because the arising cognition of the various consciousnesses is not necessarily determined in a single way.

It may arise through the power of activation, as when desire and the like are forcibly eliminated; or through the power of a faculty, as when a keen-sighted person can see the tip of every hair; or through the power of a faculty, as when a keen-sighted person can see the tip of every hair; or because of the power of an object, as when one sees the light of a lamp from afar but cannot see its flickering; or through skillful practice, as in refined crafts and the like; or through attentive apprehension of a characteristic, as when one becomes infatuated with visible form; or because a dharma must naturally arise, as with meditative concentration at the end of a kalpa; or because of the time, as when beings with malicious minds have short lives;

or because of the place of birth, as with the minds of cattle, goats, and the like; or in accordance with the power of the body, as with the minds of men and women; or in accordance with one’s age, as with the minds of children; or because of fatigue; or through the power of karma, as with those who experience the various sensual pleasures; or through the power of concentration, as when fixing the mind upon one place increases knowledge and understanding; or because of certainty, as when the immediately preceding uninterrupted path necessarily gives rise to liberation; or because of prolonged weariness, as when, after becoming weary of bitter and pungent flavors, one longs for sweetness; or in accordance with preference and delight, as regarding visible forms and the like;

or when one enjoys looking at visible forms but does not enjoy hearing sounds, and likewise regarding blue, red, and the other colors; or because of sensitivity, as when a hair touching the eye produces a painful state of mind, whereas touching another place does not; or because suffering has ceased, as when, after an eye disease has been cured, one once again knows the taste of food; or because an obstruction has been removed, as when, only after desire and the like have been eliminated, one recognizes them as faults; or through gradual progression, as when the intermediate arises from the lower, and the higher arises from the intermediate; or it may arise according to that toward which the mind inclines most strongly.

Question: If every cognition of consciousness depends successively upon another, why is it said: “There is no capacity to give rise to another mindful state of mind”?

Answer: This was said because of the non-Buddhists. The non-Buddhists claim that the cognition of consciousness arises only when the spirit and the mind unite. To refute that doctrine, it was shown that all cognition of consciousness depends upon successive conditions; hence, such a statement was made.

If a person is incapable of giving rise to another reflective state of mind, the cognition of consciousness does not arise. Why? Because of the immediately preceding condition, the cognition of consciousness has a cause, and each consciousness arises in turn.

Moreover, according to that toward which the mind inclines most strongly, each consciousness and its cognition arise in turn, just as when a tree is felled, it usually falls toward the side to which it leans most heavily. Furthermore, as stated above, the various consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously. For these reasons, one knows that the various consciousnesses arise individually and successively.

Moreover, the dharmas of consciousness must arise successively and do not wait for the union of spirit and mind, just as external things—sprouts, trees, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits—arise successively. Internal dharmas are likewise: the cognition of each consciousness arises successively.

Mindfulness is of two kinds: first, right mindfulness; second, wrong mindfulness. “Right” means being in accord with reason. For example, when one speaks of a proper question and a proper challenge, these should be answered because the challenge and question are reasonable.

Again, inquiry into the true characteristics of dharmas, such as their nature of impermanence, is called right. It is also called right when it accords with what is capable of being accomplished. Therefore, mindfulness that accords with the Path, mindfulness of truth, and the like are called right mindfulness.

Moreover, mindfulness is called right according to what a person should contemplate at a given time. For example, for a person of strong desire, contemplation of impurity is right mindfulness; when the mind is dull and sunken, arousing the perception of uplift is right mindfulness. What is contrary to the foregoing is called wrong mindfulness.

Right mindfulness can give rise to all virtues, whereas wrong mindfulness arouses all afflictions.

CHAPTER 87: DESIRE

That which the mind requires is called desire. Why is this so? Because the sutra speaks of “desiring desires.” Because one requires the objects of desire, it is called desiring desires.

Again, the sutra says: “Desire is the root of the Dharma.” Because through the desire to seek, one attains all dharmas, it is called the root of the Dharma. It also says: “If the bhiksus have abundant desire for my Dharma, then the Dharma will long endure.” To apply oneself single-mindedly to what is required is called abundant desire. Again, among the bases of spiritual power, it speaks of “the samadhi of desire, the samadhi of diligence, the samadhi of mind, and the samadhi of contemplation.” Whatever the mind requires is called desire.

This is desire for the Dharma. With the aid of diligence, one cultivates concentration and wisdom; because these four are employed, they are all called factors of spiritual power. It is also said that a person desires to fly away.

Again, there was a bhiksu who always delighted in reading and recitation. After cultivating meditation and attaining arhatship, he no longer read or recited. A deity asked him: “You always delighted in recitation; why do you no longer recite now?” The bhiksu replied: “Formerly, because I had not yet become free from desire, I needed and desired scriptures and writings.

Now that I have transcended the three realms, I no longer require them. However many scriptures, meditation practices, and forms of wisdom there may be, all were taught by noble ones, yet these are dharmas to be relinquished.” Therefore, one should know that need is the cause of desire. Because of need, one becomes attached to the various objects of desire; hence it is called craving for sensual desire.

CHAPTER 88: JOY

When the mind desires, delights in, and rejoices in something, this is called joy. As it is said, beings of like dispositions associate with one another: those who delight in evil follow evil, and those who delight in goodness follow goodness. This is called delight and joy.

Question: Disposition is not what is called joy. Why? Because the Buddha’s knowledge of the many kinds of dispositions of beings is a power of knowledge, while his knowledge of their many kinds of joys and desires is another power of knowledge. Therefore, one should know that disposition and delighted joy are distinct.

Answer: When a state of mind has been accumulated through long cultivation, it is called a disposition, and delighted joy arises according to that disposition. Thus, one should know that the power of knowledge concerning dispositions refers to knowing minds accumulated through long cultivation. The knowledge of the delighted joy that arises according to a disposition is called the power of knowledge concerning desires.

Therefore, it is said that beings associate according to their dispositions: those who have long accumulated evil states of mind delight and rejoice in evil, while those who have long accumulated wholesome states of mind delight and rejoice in goodness, just as one who is cold delights in warmth. This is a cause and condition in the present and does not arise merely by following a disposition. Such is the distinction between disposition and delighted joy.

CHAPTER 89: FAITH

Certitude is the characteristic of faith.

Question: Certitude is the characteristic of wisdom. Certitude means the severance of doubt, and this is called the characteristic of wisdom, is it not?

Answer: When one has not personally seen the Dharma but, by following the teachings of sages and noble ones, one’s mind becomes purified, this is called faith.

Question: If so, after personally seeing the Dharma, one no longer needs faith?

Answer: Correct. Only an arhat is called one who is beyond faith. As the Dhammapada says: “One who is beyond faith, one who knows the uncreated, is called a supreme person.” Again, the sutra says: “Blessed One, regarding this matter, I accept it through faith in the Buddha’s words.” When one personally sees the Dharma and the mind becomes purified, this is called faith.

Having first heard the Dharma and afterward realized it bodily, one gives rise to this thought: “This Dharma is true and certain, neither vain nor false.” The mind then becomes purified, and this is called faith. Regarding the four kinds of faith: it is like a sick person who first trusts a physician’s words, then takes the medicine and is cured, and afterward develops a purified mind toward the physician. This is called faith.

This faith is of two kinds: one arises from delusion, and the other arises from wisdom. Faith arising from delusion does not consider what is wholesome or unwholesome, as when one develops a purified mind toward evil teachers such as Purana and the others. Faith arising from wisdom is, as explained in the four kinds of faith, the purified mind developed toward the Buddha and the others.

Faith is of three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate.

Question: This unwholesome faith is itself an affliction. Is not the universal mental factor of nonfaith different from faith?

Answer: It is not the factor of nonfaith. Faith has purification as its characteristic, and unwholesome faith also has purification as its characteristic. If this were not so, unwholesome feeling should not be called feeling, but in fact that is not the case. Therefore, there are three distinct kinds. When faith is included among the faculties and accords with liberation, and when it is included among the thirty-seven factors conducive to awakening, it is certainly wholesome.

CHAPTER 90: DILIGENCE

The arousal of the mind to action is called diligence. While continually relying upon various dharmas—whether mindfulness or concentration—the single-minded arousal and continuous practice within them is called diligence. Diligence is of three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate.

When included among the four right efforts, it is called wholesome; other forms are not called wholesome. If a practitioner believes that the unwholesome is blameworthy and that wholesome dharmas are beneficial, diligence then arises to eliminate the unwholesome and accumulate wholesome dharmas. Therefore, the faculty of diligence is taught immediately after the faculty of faith.

When this diligence enters into wholesome dharmas, it is called vigor, for it can serve as the root of all beneficial undertakings. Through this vigor, it can serve as the root of all beneficial undertakings. With the aid of this vigor, mindfulness and the other dharmas can attain great results, just as fire, when fanned by wind, burns ever more fiercely.

CHAPTER 91: RECOLLECTION

Knowing an object experienced in the past is called recollection. As the sutra says: “One can recollect without forgetting what was experienced long ago.” This is called recollection.

Question: This recollection pertains to the three times. Why? Because the sutra says that one should recollect everything whatsoever. Moreover, this recollection is included among the four abodes of recollection, and these four abodes of recollection also take the three times as their objects. Why, then, do you speak only of the past?

Answer: The statement “everything whatsoever” does not refer solely to the three times. If the mind is agitated or sunken, recollection follows these two conditions; this is called ranging everywhere. As for those who say that the four abodes of recollection take the three times as their objects, in that context wisdom can take the present as its object, but that is not recollection. Therefore, when the Tathagata first states the term “recollection,” and then explains it, he calls it wisdom.

Question: How can one consciousness experience and know something, while another consciousness is able to recollect it?

Answer: Such is the nature of recollection: within the succession of dharmas that arise and cease in relation to one another, another consciousness immediately arises and is itself able to take that object once again. Such is also the nature of cognition: one consciousness experiences something, and another consciousness is able to know it, just as eye-consciousness knows form while mental consciousness is able to cognize it. Moreover, what was experienced by one person can be known by another person, as noble ones, through the power of recollection, can know the past lives experienced by this continuing body.

Question: If knowing an object experienced in the past is called recollection, then all consciousnesses should now be called recollection. Why? Because they too proceed toward objects experienced in the past.

Answer: All consciousnesses may also be called recollection. Thus, the Buddha told Satyaka Nirgranthaputra: “Recollect the original matter and give your reply.” It is also said that if one recollects former amusements and pleasures, afflictions arise. Therefore, because the various consciousnesses recollect former events, they too are called recollection. This recollection arises through apprehending a characteristic. Once the characteristic of any dharma has been apprehended, recollection arises; otherwise, it does not arise. Concentration and wisdom will be discussed in the chapters on concentration and wisdom.

CHAPTER 92: INITIAL AND SUSTAINED APPLICATION OF THOUGHT

If the mind repeatedly arises and disperses outward, this is called initial application of thought. Moreover, within a distracted mind there are also coarse and subtle aspects. The coarse is called initial application of thought; because the mind is not deeply collected, it is called the coarse mind.

As stated in the sutra: “The Buddha said: When I walk, I do so with initial and sustained application of thought.” Thus, because the first dhyana is not yet deeply collected, it is said to possess initial and sustained application of thought. When the distracted mind becomes slight and subtle, it is called sustained application of thought. These two dharmas pervade the three realms, for they are the coarse and subtle characteristics of the mind.

Furthermore, the distracted mind is called initial and sustained application of thought, because these characteristics apply in all cases. Again, matters not yet directly known must be known through inferential knowledge: one considers whether something should or should not be so; this is called initial application of thought. Therefore, because it considers matters not yet directly known, it is designated right thought or wrong thought.

When one is free from discriminative consideration, it is called right view. These three kinds of knowing are as follows: wrong thought is the inverted consideration that regards the impermanent as permanent, and so forth; in right thought, before attaining true knowledge, one knows through recollection, conceptualization, and comparison. For a practitioner among the wholesome roots conducive to penetration, this is called patience.

Such comparative knowledge of everything conducive to the Path is called right thought. Herein, if one is free from recollection, conceptualization, and discrimination, it is called direct knowledge. Within this initial application of thought, one examines and calculates: because of this cause and condition, it is thus; because of that cause and condition, it is not thus.

This is called sustained application of thought.

Question: There is a doctrine holding that initial and sustained application of thought occur within a single mind-moment. How is this?

Answer: It is not so. Why? Because you yourselves give the analogy of striking a bell: the first sound is initial application of thought, while the reverberating sounds that follow are sustained application of thought. It is also like the analogy of water waves: the coarse waves are initial application of thought, and the subtle waves are sustained application of thought. Since their times and directions differ, they do not occur within a single mind-moment. Furthermore, because the five consciousnesses do not discriminate, they have no initial or sustained application of thought.

CHAPTER 93: THE REMAINING MENTAL FACTORS

Not doing what is wholesome, or doing what is wholesome improperly, is called heedlessness; there is no separate dharma called heedlessness. The mind while acting in this manner is called heedlessness. The opposite of the foregoing is called heedfulness.

If the mind performs wholesome deeds, it is called heedfulness; likewise, there is no separate dharma of heedfulness. Furthermore, when the mind follows unwholesome dharmas, this is called heedlessness; when it accords with wholesome dharmas, this is called heedfulness. One who possesses wholesome roots is free from greed, hatred, and delusion: with reflection as the foremost condition, the capacity not to become attached is called non-greed; with loving-kindness and compassion as the foremost conditions, not giving rise to anger is called non-hatred; with right view as the foremost condition, freedom from error is called non-delusion.

There is no separate dharma called non-greed. Some say that the absence of greed is called non-greed. This is unreasonable.

Why? Because the absence of greed means there is no dharma. How could a nonexistent dharma serve as a cause for a dharma?

The same applies to non-hatred and non-delusion. Furthermore, because these oppose the three unwholesome roots, only three are taught. Pride and the like should also be unwholesome roots, but for the sake of brevity only three unwholesome roots are taught.

They will be discussed in the chapter on the unwholesome. As for indeterminate roots, some say there are four: indeterminate craving, views, pride, and ignorance. Others say there are three: craving, ignorance, and wisdom.

These were not taught by the Buddha. Whatever cause and condition gives rise to an indeterminate mind is called an indeterminate root. Furthermore, because bodily and verbal karma arise for the most part from an indeterminate mind, the indeterminate mind is called an indeterminate root.

When the activity of the mind is able to make body and mind tranquil and eliminate coarseness and heaviness, it is then called ease. The mind in operation is given many names for equanimity: when the mind’s activity amid the various feelings is indistinct, it is also called equanimity; in the dhyanas, when one has left behind pain and pleasure and allows the mind to proceed naturally, it is called equanimity; among the seven factors of awakening, when the mind neither sinks nor becomes agitated but functions evenly, it is called equanimity; when one is free from sorrow and joy and attains mental evenness, it is called equanimity; among the four immeasurables, when the mind is free from aversion and attachment, it is called equanimity.

Thus, according to the many mutually opposed dharmas, there are immeasurable distinctions among the mental factors.

End of Fascicle Six of the Treatise on the Establishment of Truth.