成實論

CHAPTER 128: PRIDE

Question: It has been said that the three afflictions are the roots of samsara. Are there any others?

Answer: Yes. It is called pride.

Question: What is pride?

Answer: Self-exaltation arising from a distorted mind is called pride. This pride has many kinds. When one is in an inferior position yet exalts oneself, it is called pride.

When one is equal to others and regards oneself as equal, this too is called pride, because therein one grasps at a characteristic with the distorted thought that one is superior. When one is equal to others yet considers oneself superior, it is called great pride. When one is superior yet exalts oneself, it is called pride upon pride.

To grasp the characteristic of a self within the five skandhas is called self-pride. Self-pride is of two kinds: that whose characteristic is manifest and that whose characteristic is unmanifest. The manifest characteristic is the self-pride of ordinary beings: namely, regarding form as the self; regarding the self as possessing form; regarding form as being within the self; or regarding the self as being within form.

The same applies through consciousness. Because these twenty aspects are manifested, it is called the manifest characteristic. The unmanifest characteristic is the self-pride of one in training, as the elder Khemaka said: “I do not say that form is the self, nor do I say that feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness is the self; yet within the five skandhas there remain self-pride, desire for self, and the underlying tendency toward self.” Because these have not yet been completely severed, it is called self-pride.

If one has not yet attained such fruits of merit as stream-entry but considers oneself to have attained them, this is called overweening pride.

Question: What faults does overweening pride have?

Answer: Later it will bring grief and distress. As stated in the sutra: “If a bhiksu says, ‘I have severed doubt and attained the Path,’ he should then be presented directly with teachings on profound causes and conditions and supramundane Dharma. If that bhiksu has not truly attained the Path, upon hearing those teachings he will experience remorse and anguish.” Therefore, one should diligently sever this overweening pride.

Moreover, even though the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, possess minds of great loving-kindness and compassion, they keep far away from those with overweening pride and do not teach them the Dharma. Therefore, it must be severed. Moreover, because those with overweening pride abide in teachings of wrong views, they possess no true merit.

They are like jewel merchants who venture deep into the great ocean but greedily seize counterfeit pearls. Such people are likewise: having entered the great ocean of the Buddha-Dharma and experienced a little joy of meditation, they mistake it for the true Path and become attached to it. Moreover, when those with overweening pride grow old and approach death, they are unable to receive the Path.

Therefore, one should diligently seek true wisdom. Moreover, those with overweening pride deprive themselves of benefit and increase their ignorance, because, although they have not truly attained, they imagine that they have. Therefore, one should not deceive oneself but should avoid and abandon it.

If one considers oneself only slightly inferior to someone vastly superior, this is called the pride of thinking oneself not inferior. Such a person both exalts and abases oneself. If a person without virtue exalts oneself, it is called perverse pride.

Exalting oneself on the basis of evil qualities is also called perverse pride. If one refuses to bow respectfully to good people and those worthy of honor, it is called arrogance. Characteristics such as these are called pride.

Question: How does pride arise?

Answer: Pride arises because one does not know the true characteristics of the skandhas. As stated in the sutra: “If a person takes impermanent form and thinks of oneself, ‘Am I superior, equal, or inferior?’ it is precisely because that person does not know its characteristic as it truly is.” The same applies to consciousness. If one knows the characteristics of the skandhas, pride does not arise.

It is like an ox that, relying upon its two horns, becomes fierce and arrogant; if its two horns are removed, nothing remains by which it can act fiercely. The body is impure, with filth flowing from its nine openings; what wise person would rely upon it to exalt oneself? By thus recollecting the body through these causes and conditions, pride does not arise.

Moreover, the wise know that all sentient beings—whether poor or rich, noble or lowly—have bodies formed from the assemblage of bones, flesh, sinews, blood vessels, five viscera, and excrement. All undergo birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, and suffering. All also possess afflictions such as greed and anger, karma of demerit and merit, and the evil destinies such as the hells.

How, then, could they give rise to pride? Moreover, when one sees that internal and external mental states arise through causes and conditions and perish from moment to moment, pride does not arise. Why is this?

Pride arises by pursuing characteristics; if there are no characteristics, upon what could pride arise? Moreover, if a wise person truly possesses morality and other virtues, pride does not arise. Why?

Because morality and all other virtues are cultivated in order to extinguish these afflictions. If one possesses no virtue, what wise person would give rise to pride over something that does not exist? Furthermore, contemplation of impermanence and other such characteristics extinguishes pride.

What wise person would give rise to pride over things that are impermanent, painful, and impure?

Question: What faults does pride have?

Answer: From pride comes the body, and from the body arises all suffering. As the Buddha said in the sutra: “If any of my disciples cannot know the characteristic of pride as it truly is, I predict that such a person will be reborn in a certain place because residual pride has not yet been severed.” Moreover, all afflictions arise in dependence upon grasping characteristics, and the characteristic of self is the greatest of all characteristics.

Therefore, one should know that the body comes from pride. Moreover, pride is itself a component of delusion. Why?

Because when the eye sees form, one says, “I am able to see.” Furthermore, the arising of this pride is entirely unreasonable. Why? Because everything in the world is impermanent, painful, and without self; how could one give rise to pride on account of it?

Thus, compared with greed, anger, and delusion, it is especially unreasonable. Moreover, pride produces both coarse and heavy karma because attachment is profound; karma arising from greed is not like this. Moreover, through the powerful force of pride, greed and the other afflictions become more intense.

For example, when a greedy person acquires lineage and other advantages, pride grows and blazes ever more intensely. Furthermore, because of self-pride, one is born into a lowly family or among lions, tigers, and wolves. Through these causes and conditions, one falls into hell.

Pride has immeasurably many faults such as these.

Question: What characteristics indicate that a person has much pride?

Answer: Such a person clings firmly to personal views and is difficult to reason with; has no reverence; delights in acting willfully and behaving self-importantly; is conceited and difficult to teach; seldom feels fear; having gained little, regards it as much; and delights in despising others. These faults are extremely difficult to remove. Therefore, the wise should by no means commit the fault of pride.

CHAPTER 129: DOUBT

The author of the treatise says: Doubt is the mind’s lack of certainty concerning true Dharma, thinking: Is there liberation or is there no liberation? Is there good and evil or are there none? Are there the Three Jewels or are there not? This is called doubt.

Question: Suppose one sees a bare tree and doubts whether it is a tree or a person; sees a clod of earth and doubts whether it is a clod or a pigeon; sees a beehive and doubts whether it is a beehive or a jambu fruit; sees a snake and doubts whether it is a snake or a length of rope; or sees a mirage and doubts whether it is light or water. Doubts such as these arise in dependence upon eye-consciousness. Upon hearing a sound, one may doubt whether it is the cry of a peacock or a person imitating it.

Upon smelling a fragrance, one may doubt whether it is the fragrance of an utpala flower or a blended perfume. Upon tasting a flavor, one may doubt whether it is the flavor of meat or something resembling meat. Upon touching something, one may doubt whether it is raw silk or processed silk.

In mental consciousness, many kinds of doubt arise, such as whether a certain dharma possesses dravya or only guna, and whether there is a spirit or no spirit. Should doubts such as these be considered doubt?

Answer: Doubts arising about a bare tree, a person, and so forth are not afflictions, because they cannot serve as causes and conditions for a future body; moreover, even those whose outflows are exhausted may give rise to such doubts.

Question: How does that doubt arise?

Answer: Because two kinds of phenomena are seen, heard, or known, doubt arises. Why is this? Suppose one first sees two things standing there: a tree and a person.

Later, seeing from afar something resembling both the person and the object, one becomes doubtful: Is it a tree or a person? The ground and other such things are likewise. There are two kinds of hearing: one hears it said that there are transgressions and merits and a future life, and one also hears it said that there are none; therefore doubt arises.

There are two kinds of knowing: when heavy rain falls, the water in ditches and channels rises; yet when a dam is built, the water in a channel may also rise and overflow. When rain is imminent, ants carry their eggs and migrate; yet when someone digs a well, they may also carry their eggs away to escape. When a peacock cries, a person can imitate it.

Something real may be seen, like a jar; something unreal may also be seen, like a circle of fire whirled around. Something real may be unseen, like tree roots and water beneath the ground; something unreal may also be unseen, like a second head or a third hand. Because there are these two kinds of phenomena that are seen, heard, or known, doubt arises.

Furthermore, doubt arises when one sees without careful examination, as in the eight causes and conditions associated with seeing from afar. Again, doubt arises from believing two persons: one person says that there is a future life, while another says that there is none. Because one believes both persons, doubt arises.

Furthermore, regarding a matter open to doubt, so long as one does not perceive a distinguishing characteristic, doubt arises. If one perceives a distinguishing characteristic, there is no doubt.

Question: What does it mean to perceive a distinguishing characteristic?

Answer: When seeing, hearing, or knowing becomes certain, there is no doubt. Within the Buddha-Dharma, when one personally realizes the true characteristic of phenomena, doubt is ultimately extinguished. When the bodhisattva sat at the place of enlightenment, taught the Dharma, and practiced diligently, the brahmin directly realized the profound Dharma; all conditions associated with seeing and knowing were extinguished, and the net of doubt was immediately torn apart. Furthermore, if one attains reasoned wisdom, this doubt ceases. For example, when a wise person hears it said that formations are the cause and condition for consciousness, he immediately knows with certainty and clarity that samsara is beginningless, and so forth.

Question: What faults does doubt possess?

Answer: If a person has much doubt, none of his undertakings, whether worldly or supramundane, can be accomplished. Why is this? Because a doubtful person cannot initiate any undertaking; even if he initiates one, his effort is feeble, and therefore it cannot be accomplished.

Moreover, the sutra says: “Doubt is like sprouting roots in the mind. Just as in a barren field overgrown with sprouting roots even rare flowers cannot grow, much less varieties of glutinous rice.” The mind is likewise. Because it is damaged by the roots of doubt, one cannot arrive at certainty even concerning erroneous matters, much less determine what is right.

Furthermore, the Buddha called doubt a mass of darkness. There are three kinds of masses of darkness: the mass of darkness concerning the past, the mass of darkness concerning the future, and the mass of darkness concerning the present. These masses of darkness give rise to the various views of self.

Furthermore, even if such a person attains a concentrated mind, it is wrong concentration. Apart from the Buddha-Dharma, he cannot be said to possess right concentration. Moreover, many beings harbor doubt until death.

It is said that A-Tra-già-la and others were sages possessing the five superknowledges, yet they carried their doubts with them until death. Furthermore, if such a doubtful person cultivates merits such as giving, he may receive no karmic result or only a slight result. Why is this?

Because all such meritorious actions arise from the mind. Yet this person’s mind is constantly clouded and muddied by doubt; therefore there is no wholesome merit. Moreover, the sutra says: “One who practices giving with a doubtful mind receives the karmic result of being born in a borderland.” Why is this?

Because such a greatly doubtful person cannot be single-minded. When his hand gives something, he cannot give rise to thoughts of reverence; therefore he receives only a slight karmic result and is born in a borderland, like the petty king Ba-da-tuy and others.

Question: This doubt does not exist. Why is this? Doubt is a mental factor, and mental factors arise and cease from moment to moment. If something “is,” it is not “is not”; if it “is not,” it is not “is.” Because “is” and “is not” cannot both be present within a single moment of mind, one should therefore know that doubt does not exist.

Answer: I do not say that doubt exists within each individual moment. A continuous succession of undecided thoughts is called doubt. At that time, the mind cannot clearly determine whether the object is a bare tree or a person. Because this state of mind continues in succession and lacks faith, the mind becomes turbid. Lack of faith also arises from wrong views. At times doubt is present, and at times it is absent. This lack of faith is of two kinds: first, that arising from a doubtful mind; and second, that arising from wrong views, which is more serious. Faith is also of two kinds: first, that arising from right view; and second, that arising from hearing. Faith arising from right view is firm and steadfast; that arising from hearing is not so.

CHAPTER 130: THE VIEW OF THE BODY

The thought of self within the five skandhas is called the view of the body. Because in truth there is no self, this view is said to take the five skandhas as its object. The five skandhas are called the body. When a view arises concerning them and, having cognized them, one clings to them, this is called the view of the body. Because one apprehends the characteristic of a self where there is no self, it is called attachment to a view.

Question: What fault is there in simply assigning the name “self” to the five skandhas? Things such as jars all possess their own characteristics, and there is no fault in this; the self is likewise. Moreover, there would be a fault only if one said that a separate self exists apart from the skandhas.

Answer: Even if one does not speak of a self apart from the skandhas, there is still a fault. Why is this? The various non-Buddhist schools say that the self is permanent, because it creates karma in this life and undergoes its karmic results in a future life.

If this were so, the five skandhas would necessarily be permanent. They also say that the self is one. Then must the five skandhas also be one?

This is a fault. Furthermore, the very notion of self is itself a fault. Why is this?

Because, owing to the thought of self, there comes to be what belongs to the self. Because there is what belongs to the self, greed, anger, and all the other afflictions arise. Therefore, one should know that the thought of self is the source from which the afflictions arise.

Furthermore, although this person does not speak of a self apart from the skandhas, because he apprehends the characteristics of the skandhas, he does not cultivate the principle of emptiness. Because he does not cultivate the principle of emptiness, afflictions arise. From afflictions arises karma, and from karma arises suffering.

In this way, the succession of birth and death continues without end. Furthermore, because this person clings to a self, he cannot even make a coarse distinction among the head, eyes, hands, and feet of the body, much less distinguish the various skandhas, for he has accepted the self as one and the self as permanent. Since he cannot distinguish them, how could he enter the principle of emptiness?

Moreover, if one clings to a self, one fears nirvana, believing that the self will cease to exist. As the sutra says: “When ordinary people hear the principle of emptiness and no-self, they become greatly afraid, thinking that the self will cease to exist and that there will be nothing whatsoever to attain.” Such ordinary people would go so far as to crave even the diseased body of a mangy jackal rather than accept nirvana.

If they attain the wisdom of emptiness, they will no longer fear anything. As the Upasena Sutra says: “A person who purely observes the precepts and skillfully cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path rejoices in his heart when life comes to an end, as though breaking apart a vessel filled with poison.”

If one says that a self exists, one falls into wrong view. If the self is permanent, suffering and happiness cannot change. If they do not change, there can be neither transgression nor merit. If the self is impermanent, there is no future life, liberation occurs naturally, and there can likewise be neither transgression nor merit. Therefore, one should know that the view of the body is the gravest fault. Furthermore, a person holding the view of the body is called exceedingly deluded. Because all ordinary people have minds confused by the view of the body and are deeply attached to the existence of a self, they wander repeatedly through birth and death. If they perceive no-self, this wandering ceases.

Question: If the five skandhas are without self, why do beings give rise to the thought of self in relation to them?

Answer: Some, upon hearing the names and characteristics of men and women, gods and humans, give rise to the notion of a self through conceptual discrimination. Also, because nonhumans resemble humans, they give rise to the notion of a self. They say: If there is no self, who experiences suffering and pleasure, conducts bodily deportment and speech, creates meritorious and sinful karma, and undergoes its retribution?

Moreover, throughout beginningless birth and death, the notion of a self has long been accumulated and habituated, and beings are consequently driven by it; thus, just as with the notion of a vase and the like, the notion of a self arises. Furthermore, the notion of a self arises within the appropriated skandhas, not within what is unappropriated. That is, wherever the notion of a self can arise, they believe a self exists there.

Why is this? Because the notion of a self cannot arise everywhere. Again, because of ignorance, the notion of a self arises, just as a blind person who picks up pieces of pottery or stones immediately imagines them to be gold or jewels.

Furthermore, such a person has not attained the discerning wisdom of emptiness and, because of ignorance, sees a self as existing, just as one imagines reality within illusions, dreams, a city of the gandharvas, or a circle made by a whirling firebrand.

Question: It is plainly seen that the physical body’s hair, body hair, nails, and other parts are all distinct. Why, then, do the wise regard it as the self?

Answer: Some see the spirit as resembling a grain of corn, a mustard seed, or the like, dwelling within the heart. The spirit of a brahmin is white; the spirit of a kshatriya is yellow; that of a vaishya is red; and the spirit of a shudra is black. Moreover, the Vedas say: “At the beginning of illumination, the spirit of the Great Person has a color like the radiance of the sun.

If one knows this Spirit, one can transcend birth and death; there is no other path. In a small person the spirit is small, while in a great person the spirit is large, and it dwells in the cavern of the body.” Again, when meditators attain the sign of luminosity, they see the Spirit within the body like a thread inside a pure pearl. Those who cling to form in such ways are shallow thinkers.

They say that feeling is the self, because trees, stones, and the like possess no feeling; thus they conclude that feeling itself is the self. Those of intermediate reflection say that perception is the self, because although suffering and pleasure are defective, there nevertheless remains the perception of the notion of self. Those who reflect more carefully say that formations are the self, because although notions such as that of a vase are defective, there nevertheless remains the mental activity that conceives a self.

Those whose reflection is still more profound say that consciousness is the self, because knowing and thinking are still coarse; although such thought is defective, there nevertheless remains the discriminative awareness that apprehends the notion of self. Furthermore, the notion of a self arises within the five skandhas because such persons cannot distinguish feeling and the other skandhas. The notion of a self arises from the conjunction of form and mind, just as the combined presence of the four factors beginning with form gives rise to the conception of a vase.

Because of distinctions concerning form and the other skandhas, there are twenty divisions of the view that form is the self. Why is this? Because form is the dharma known by the self and is the support of feeling and the others; these feelings and the others are bound to form.

Therefore, form is called the self. Some see form as existing within feeling and the others, because feeling and the others are not discriminatively manifest and thus are supported by form, just as space, being imperceptible, serves as the support of earth and the other elements. In this way, all twenty divisions arise from these causes.

Question: Why are divisions of the self not discussed in relation to the eye and the other sense faculties?

Answer: They are also discussed. As a sutra says: “If someone says that the eye is the self, this is unreasonable. Why? Because the eye arises and ceases. If the eye were the self, the self would also arise and cease.” Furthermore, the eye and the other faculties each have their own distinct characteristics. If one says that the eye is the self but the ear and the others are not the self, that is untenable. If the ear and the others were also selves, one person would possess many selves. Because distinctions exist among form and the other skandhas, one may speak of form as the self, but not of feeling and the others.

Question: It is said that the doctrine of no-self is also a wrong view. How is this so?

Answer: There are two truths. To say that a self exists according to ultimate truth is to fall into a wrong view; to say that there is no self according to conventional truth is also to fall into a wrong view. To say that a self exists according to conventional truth and that there is no self according to ultimate truth is therefore right view.

Furthermore, according to ultimate truth one should speak of nonexistence, while according to conventional truth one should speak of existence; then one does not fall into extreme views. When one is free from assertions of existence and nonexistence in this way, everything is comprehended. It is like a tigress carrying her cub: if she grips it too tightly, the cub is injured; if she grips it too loosely, the cub falls.

Likewise, if one definitively asserts that a self exists, one falls into the view of a substantial self; if one definitively asserts that there is no self, one falls into a wrong view. Moreover, both excess and deficiency are faulty: definitively asserting that there is no self is excessive, while definitively asserting that a self exists is deficient. Therefore, a sutra says: “One must abandon both extremes.” To say that there is no self according to ultimate truth and that a self exists according to conventional truth is called abandoning the two extremes and walking the Middle Way.

Moreover, the Buddha-Dharma cannot be defeated in disputation. If one says that there is no self according to ultimate truth, the wise cannot refute it; if one says that a self exists according to conventional truth, ordinary people cannot dispute it. Furthermore, the Buddha-Dharma is the pure Middle Way, neither eternalism nor annihilationism.

Because there is no self according to ultimate truth, it is not eternalism; because there is a self according to conventional truth, it is not annihilationism.

Question: If dharmas are nonexistent according to ultimate truth, they should be altogether nonexistent. Why, then, is it said that they exist according to conventional truth?

Answer: All the statements found in the world—concerning karma and karmic retribution, bondage and liberation, and so forth—arise because of ignorance. Why? Because the five skandhas are empty, arising in succession like an illusion or a flame.

In order to liberate ordinary people, one teaches that they exist in accordance with convention. If one did not speak in this way, ignorant ordinary people might fall into annihilationism. If one did not speak of the skandhas, one could not teach and transform them, for sinful and meritorious karma, bondage and liberation, and the like could not be established.

If one can break through these statements born of ignorance, one can enter the principle of emptiness by oneself. At that time, all wrong views cease. Therefore, ultimate truth is taught afterward.

At first, one is taught to contemplate the body in order to destroy the notions of male and female. Next, the body is analyzed into hair, body hair, nails, and the other parts, showing that there are only the five skandhas. Finally, the characteristic of emptiness is used to eliminate the notion of the five skandhas.

The elimination of the notion of the five skandhas is called ultimate truth. Furthermore, if one says that they exist according to conventional truth, it remains necessary to say that they do not exist according to ultimate truth. A sutra also says: “If one knows that dharmas possess no intrinsic nature, one can enter the principle of emptiness.” Thus, one should know that the five skandhas also do not exist.

Moreover, concerning emptiness according to ultimate truth, a sutra says: “The eye and the others do not exist according to ultimate truth, but exist according to conventional truth.” The Sutra on Great Emptiness says: “If one says, ‘This is aging and death,’ or says, ‘This person undergoes aging and death,’ it is like the non-Buddhist teaching that the body itself is the Spirit, or that the body is one thing and the Spirit another.

The meaning is the same, though the names differ.” To say either that the body itself is the Spirit or that the body and Spirit are distinct is not the conduct of a practitioner of the holy life. Negating “this person undergoes aging and death” teaches no-self. Negating “this is aging and death” refutes aging and death, and likewise all the way through ignorance.

Therefore, one should know that according to ultimate truth, aging and death and the rest do not exist. The statement that birth is the condition for aging and death is made only according to conventional truth; this is called the Middle Way. Furthermore, in the Radha Sutra, the Buddha told Radha: “Disperse, destroy, and break apart form, causing it to cease and no longer appear; do likewise all the way through consciousness.” Because walls, stones, and the like are not real, they can be destroyed and made to disappear.

The skandhas likewise cease to appear because they do not exist according to ultimate truth. As long as the characteristics of the skandhas remain, the notion of self can never be completely severed, because its causes and conditions have not been extinguished. It is like a tree that has been cut down and burned until it becomes ash and charcoal, yet the conception of the tree still casts its shadow.

Only when this ash and charcoal are scattered by the wind and carried away by water does the conception of the tree cease. Likewise, only when the characteristics of the five skandhas have been broken apart, dispersed, and extinguished is the characteristic of emptiness said to be complete. Furthermore, a sutra says: “Radha, break apart, disperse, divide, and analyze the sentient being, causing it no longer to appear.” This sutra teaches that the five skandhas are impermanent and the sentient being is empty.

The preceding sutra teaches that the dispersal and cessation of the five skandhas is the emptiness of dharmas.

CHAPTER 131: EXTREME VIEWS

If one holds that dharmas are either annihilated or eternal, this is an extreme view—that is, attachment to one of two opposing extremes. A certain treatise master said: “If a person says that the self is either annihilated or eternal, this is an extreme view; it does not concern all dharmas. Why?

Because external things are plainly seen to perish. Thus the sutra says: ‘To see existence is called eternalism; to see nonexistence is called annihilationism.’ Again, to say that the body is identical with the spirit is called the view of annihilation; to say that the body and the spirit are different is called the view of eternalism. Again, to say that after death one does not act is called the view of annihilation; to say that after death one acts again is called the view of eternalism.

To say that after death one both acts and does not act: insofar as there is an agent, this is called eternalism; insofar as there is no agent, this is called annihilationism. Neither acting nor not acting is likewise.

Question: The fourth alternative should not be called an attachment to a view, should it?

Answer: Since this person holds that, even within conventional truth, there is neither person nor dharma, it is called an attachment to a view. The four alternatives concerning permanence and impermanence, finitude and infinitude, are likewise. Again, the sutra says: “When the six bases of contact have entirely ceased, if there remains something ‘other,’ this is eternalism; if there remains nothing ‘other,’ this is called annihilationism.” Again, to maintain that the self acted previously and will act again afterward is called the view of eternalism; to maintain that the self did not act previously and will not act afterward is called the view of annihilation.

Again, the Sutra on Wrong Views says: “A human body has seven constituents: earth, water, fire, wind, suffering, pleasure, and life. At death, the four great elements return to their sources, and the faculties return to empty space.” It also says: “If one kills living beings with knives and axes, piling their flesh into a heap, there is no offense of killing.” This is called the view of annihilation. The Brahmajala Sutra also describes this as a characteristic of the view of annihilation.

To say that there is an agent in a future life and that this very agent is the experiencer is called the view of eternalism.

Question: How do the views of annihilation and eternalism arise?

Answer: According to certain causes and conditions, one says that after death those same causes and conditions arise again; thus the extreme view of eternalism arises. According to certain causes and conditions, one says that after death those causes and conditions do not arise again; thus the view of annihilation arises.

Question: How can these views be eliminated?

Answer: Precisely by cultivating the contemplation of emptiness, there is no view of self. Because there is no view of self, there is no further attachment to the two extremes. As stated in the Yamaka Sutra: “If each skandha is not a person, then their combination is also not a person, and apart from them there is likewise no person. Even in the present a person cannot thus be apprehended; how, then, can one say that after death an arhat does not act?” Therefore, one should know that a person cannot be apprehended. Because a person cannot be apprehended, neither the view of self nor the views of annihilation and eternalism exist.

Again, when one sees that dharmas arise through many conditions, one does not cling to either extreme. It is also said: Seeing the arising of the world, one abandons attachment to nonexistence; seeing the cessation of the world, one abandons attachment to existence. Again, by practicing the Middle Way, one extinguishes both extremes.

Why? Seeing dharmas arise continuously in succession, one abandons the view of annihilation; seeing them cease moment by moment, one abandons the view of eternalism. Again, it is said that the person is neither identical with the five skandhas nor separate from the skandhas.

Therefore, one knows that the person is neither eternal nor annihilated. Because another body can be acquired, they cannot be said to be one; because both are the same sentient being, they cannot be said to be different. Again, only through the continuity of the five skandhas is there a sentient being who dies and is reborn.

In this respect, it cannot be said that the later one is identical with the former, because the succession is continually different; nor can it be said that they are different, because within that succession they may be spoken of as one. Again, it is said: Because one passes from these skandhas to different skandhas, one cannot speak of permanence; because they arise successively through the power of causes and conditions, one cannot speak of annihilation.

CHAPTER 132: WRONG VIEWS

If a dharma truly exists, yet one gives rise to the thought that it does not exist, this is called a wrong view. For example, one may say that the Four Noble Truths, the Three Jewels, and so forth do not exist. The sutra says: “Wrong view consists in saying: There is no giving, no offering, no sacrificial burning; there is neither good nor evil, nor wholesome and unwholesome karma; there is neither this world nor a world hereafter; there is neither father nor mother; there are no sentient beings who take birth in the world; there are no arhats of right conduct and right knowledge who have personally realized and directly known this world and the world hereafter, knowing: ‘My birth and death have ended, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done.

After this body, there will be no other body.’ Giving means giving for the benefit of others. Offering means that the words in the Vedas are of divine origin and therefore should be venerated. Sacrificial burning means burning fragrant substances, clarified butter, and the like in shrines dedicated to deities.

Good means wholesome karma capable of bringing the three kinds of desirable fruit. Evil means the three kinds of evil karma that bring undesirable fruit. The results of good and evil karma include, in this life, good or bad reputation and the like, and in a future life, the fruition of a divine body and so forth.

This world means the present; the world hereafter means the future. Father and mother are those capable of giving birth. Sentient beings who take birth are those who pass from this life to a future life.

Arhats are those whose afflictions have been exhausted. To deny these things is called wrong view.” Again, to say that the defilement and purification of sentient beings, their knowledge and vision or lack of knowledge and vision, are all without causes and conditions, and that there is no power, no strength, and no corresponding fruition, is called wrong view. To regard the impermanent as permanent; suffering as pleasure; the impure as pure; non-self as self; what is not supreme as supreme; the path of purification as not the path of purification; what is not the path of purification as the path of purification; to imagine existence where there is emptiness and nonexistence where there is existence—all such inverted thoughts are called the five views in the Abhidharma treatises.

The sixty-two views taught in the Brahmajala Sutra are all called wrong views.

Question: How do these wrong views arise?

Answer: They arise from delusion. Because of attachment to what is not a cause and to what merely resembles a cause, wrong views arise. Again, because one subsequently becomes attached to causes of pleasure, one declares that there is no suffering.

Again, because one loses the principle of true emptiness, one says that there is no suffering, on the grounds that there is no one who experiences suffering. Some say that the myriad things in the world have neither causes nor conditions. Others say that they arise from Isvara and the like, rather than from craving.

This is called denial of the truth of Origin. According to certain causes and conditions, one says that there is no nirvana; or one describes nirvana in some other manner. This is called denial of the truth of Cessation.

If there is no path to nirvana, where could one arrive? Or one says that there is another path to liberation, such as the mere severance of greed and the other afflictions. This is called denial of the Path.

To say that there is no Buddha arises when a person reasons: “Dharmas are numerous and immeasurable; how could a single person know them all?” Or one may think: “The Buddha would be the most exalted among human beings, with no one equal to him”; therefore, one concludes that there is no Buddha. Because one holds that the afflictions cannot be entirely exhausted, one says there is no Dharma. Because one holds that no practitioner rightly practices this Dharma, one says there is no Sangha.

Because giving does not yield an immediately visible result, one says that there is no giving. Moreover, certain scriptures say that there is no giving. Even inference does not yield certainty: in the world, some who delight in giving are nevertheless poor and destitute, while some who are miserly become wealthy and honored.

For these reasons, one says that there is no giving and no offering. The denial of sacrificial burning is likewise.

If fire is used to burn a thing to ashes, what fruits are present therein? There is neither good nor evil, and no karmic retribution for good or evil. For example, it is said that if the Spirit is eternal, then there is neither good nor evil; if the Spirit is impermanent, then there is no subsequent life.

Because there is no subsequent life, there is neither good nor evil, and no karmic retribution for good or evil. There is no present life: this means that when all dharmas are divided and analyzed, ultimately nothing whatsoever exists. There is no subsequent life: this means that after death nothing serves as a cause or condition; hence there is no subsequent life.

There are no father and mother: this likewise means dividing them part by part until they are entirely reduced to nothing. It is also said that, just as worms arise from a lump of dung, the lump of dung is certainly not the father or mother of the worms. Furthermore, bodily parts such as the head are not themselves the bodily parts of one’s father and mother.

Moreover, since all dharmas perish from thought-moment to thought-moment, what could be regarded as father and mother? There is no sentient being who undergoes birth: because the dharma of a sentient being does not exist, such a being does not exist even in the present life, much less can it receive a body in a subsequent life. Furthermore, upon merely considering the matter, one may ask: Is this sentient being this body, or is it other than this body?

If it is this body, then one sees this body buried and turned into earth, burned and reduced to ashes, or eaten by worms and turned into excrement; therefore, it does not undergo birth. If it is other than this body, then there are two possibilities: it is either the mind or something apart from the mind. If it is the mind, mental dharmas arise and perish from thought-moment to thought-moment and do not abide; how much less could they reach a body in a subsequent life?

If it is apart from the mind, then it cannot be apprehended as a self. Even within another person’s mind, one cannot apprehend a self; how much less in what is devoid of mind? Therefore, there is no one who undergoes birth.

There are no arhats: this person sees that everyone seeks food when hungry, seeks warmth when cold, seeks coolness when hot, becomes angry when harmed, and rejoices when respected and supported; therefore, he holds that no one has completely exhausted the afflictions. Moreover, some scriptures say that there are no arhats; by relying on such scriptures, this person gives rise to wrong view. Defilement, purity, and the like have no causes or conditions: this person sees defiled dharmas arise naturally.

Furthermore, some defiled things are defiled by their own nature; therefore, he speaks of their being without cause. Knowing and seeing, and not knowing and not seeing, are likewise regarded in this way. There is neither power nor strength: all sentient beings depend upon causes and conditions, yet some say that the Lord Īśvara alone performs actions.

Furthermore, seeing that sentient beings are governed by the causes and conditions of karma and not by Lord Īśvara, they say that there is neither power nor strength, nor such karmic results.

Regarding the impermanent as permanent: relying upon some cause or condition to refute the doctrine that things perish from thought-moment to thought-moment, one gives rise, through that cause or condition, to the view of permanence. Some also say that when dharmas perish, they become atoms again; others say that they return to their original nature. Again, although dharmas perish, because they are remembered and conceived, they can experience suffering and happiness and arise and grow anew; thus they are permanent.

Some also say that the Spirit is eternal and that sound too is eternal. For these reasons, the perception of permanence arises. Regarding suffering as happiness: those who delight in pleasure rely upon some cause or condition and declare that happiness exists, as explained previously in the chapter on the three kinds of feeling.

Through such causes and conditions, the perception of happiness arises. Regarding the impure as pure: because of attachment to the body, although one sees impurity with one’s eyes, one gives rise to the perception of purity. Or one thinks: “From certain signs, I see that this body is impure, yet some sentient beings regard it as pure.” Through causes and conditions such as these, the perception of purity arises.

Regarding what is without self as self: seeing the continuous arising of the skandhas, one grasps them as a single characteristic and regards it as self. Furthermore, the causes and conditions that give rise to the view of a body were explained previously. Through these causes and conditions, the perception of self arises.

Regarding what is not superior as superior: this person regards non-Buddhist teachers such as Pūraṇa and others as supreme. Brahmā also declares of himself: “I am the Great Brahmā, the creator of all things.” Such are examples of this. Some say that if a person fully enjoys the pleasures of the five desires, this is the most excellent Dharma.

Others say that if a person becomes free from sensual desire and enters the first dhyana through the fourth dhyana, this is the most excellent Dharma. Others say that among the sentient beings visibly present in the world, brahmins are exalted, while gods, not presently visible among sentient beings, are the highest. This is regarding what is not superior as superior.

Regarding what is superior as not superior: among all sentient beings, the Buddha is the most excellent, yet some do not form the perception that the Buddha is superior and instead say: “He is merely of the kshatriya lineage and has only recently begun to study the Path.” They further claim: “The teachings within the Buddha-Dharma are neither skillful nor elegant; their language is tedious, repetitive, and inferior to the Vedas.

Thus, they cannot be called superior. Within the Sangha there are four classes of persons; therefore, it is not superior.” In such ways, they give rise to the perception of inferiority regarding what is superior.

Regarding a path that is not the path of purity as the path of purity: some say that washing a person with ashes, water, and the like makes that person pure. Others say that bringing birth and death entirely to an end is called the path of purity. Others are solely attached to observing precepts, practicing brahmacarya, making offerings to gods, and the like.

Some also say that purity is attained through Lord Īśvara. Others say that exhausting past karma through ascetic practices is called purity. Again, some say that whenever one wishes to bathe for purification, one must recite mantras from the Vedas before eating or drinking; this is called the path of purity.

They believe that liberation is attained through various wrong paths such as these, and do not regard the Noble Eightfold Path as the path of purity. Regarding what exists as nonexistent: this is to say that something exists according to conventional truth, yet one declares it nonexistent. Regarding what is nonexistent as existent: for example, one says that đà-la-phiêu exists, that hữu-phần-giả exists, and also that cầu-na, numbers, and the like exist; one likewise says that general characteristics, particular characteristics, aggregations, and thế-tính exist, regarding nonexistent things as existent.

Giving rise through causes and conditions such as these to an inverted mind is in every case called wrong view. Among these wrong views, four kinds of view are distinguished in particular; the remaining grave views are all likewise called wrong views.

Question: How is this wrong view ended?

Answer: In the Buddha’s sutras it is said that right view can eliminate wrong view.

Question: How does right view arise?

Answer: Right view arises through seeing, hearing, inferential knowledge, and correct ascertainment. Furthermore, when one skillfully cultivates right samadhi, right view arises. As a sutra says, one whose mind is collected can know things as they really are, whereas one whose mind is distracted cannot.

Question: What faults does this wrong view have?

Answer: All sins, faults, decline, and afflictions arise from wrong views. Such a person declares that there are no merit and sin, and no wholesome or unwholesome karmic retribution. Therefore, even in the present life, such a person has no wholesome and excellent qualities, much less in a future life. One who thus denies good and evil is said to have cut off the roots of goodness. Such a person will certainly fall into the Avici hell. As stated in the Abhidharma-satpada, the offense of killing such a person is lighter than that of killing an ant or another kind of insect.

Furthermore, this person of wrong views defiles the world. Because such a person greatly harms and diminishes sentient beings, that person’s way of living resembles a poisonous tree, which harms others merely by remaining alive. Moreover, the bodily, verbal, and mental karma produced by this person all bring evil retribution.

As a sutra states: “The bodily, verbal, and mental karma produced by a person of wrong views, together with whatever that person wishes, thinks, or recollects, all bring evil retribution. It is like planting the seed of a bitter gourd or the seed of the poisonous kusa plant, which will certainly destroy the seed of the cumanda tree.” All the earth, water, fire, and wind contained therein are bitter in flavor because a bitter seed was planted.

In the same way, all the primary minds and associated mental factors of a person of wrong views bring evil retribution because of those wrong views.

Therefore, even if this person practices giving and the like, there will certainly be no good retribution, because such acts have already been corrupted by the mind of wrong views. Whatever unwholesome deeds this person commits continually increase, because an evil mind has been accumulated for a very long time. Moreover, only through the Dharma of moral discipline can what is contrary to the Dharma be restrained. But because this person denies good and evil, nothing can inhibit or restrain that person. Thus, such a person becomes utterly heedless and wantonly engages in unwholesome conduct, certainly destroying the two pure qualities of moral shame and moral dread, and thereby becoming no different from an animal.

Furthermore, when a person says that there is neither good nor evil, that person’s mind constantly harbors unwholesomeness. Moreover, such a person has no causal conditions enabling the reception of wholesome dharmas. Why is this? Because that person does not know how to draw near to good people and does not listen to the wholesome Dharma; evil thoughts arise easily, while wholesome thoughts are difficult to produce. Because evil arises easily, there are no causal conditions for goodness. When this continues to accumulate, the roots of goodness are severed and lost.

Furthermore, this person of wrong views is said to dwell in a place of adversity, like sentient beings in hell who are incapable of attaining the Path. Even if such a person is born in a central land, possesses all six faculties, and can distinguish good from bad, that person is still incapable of attaining the Path. Moreover, there is no evil that this person of wrong views will not commit, without regard for whether it is light or grave. Even if such a person commits only a minor unwholesome deed, that person will nevertheless fall into hell, because the karma is produced by a mind burdened with grave guilt, as hellish karma was explained in the Chapter on Karma. For these reasons, all the karma created by such a person leads to hell.

Moreover, this person does not know how to bring evil and sinful karma to an end, because unwholesome dharmas constantly abide in the mind. Furthermore, after repeatedly wandering through hell, such a person finds liberation difficult to attain. Why is this? A person who has cut off the roots of goodness certainly cannot escape from hell until those roots of goodness resume their continuity. Yet because this person’s wrong views continually abide in the mind, how could the roots of goodness arise and resume their continuity?

Furthermore, a person of wrong views is said to be incurable, like a patient in whom the signs of death have already appeared, whom even an excellent physician cannot cure. This person is the same, because not the slightest goodness remains. Even the Buddhas cannot save such a person. Therefore, that person will certainly fall into the Avici hell.

CHAPTER ON THE TWO KINDS OF GRASPING, NO. 133

When, regarding what is not true, one gives rise to the fixed conviction, “Only this is true; everything else is false speech,” this is called grasping at views. As previously stated, when one decisively conceives what is not superior to be superior, this too is called grasping at views.

Question: What faults are found in grasping at views?

Answer: Such a person gains only a little merit and virtue, yet considers oneself fully satisfied. Moreover, this person’s efforts are made in vain. Why is this? Regarding what is not wholesome, that person conceives it to be supremely wholesome and then diligently strives in its practice. Because of these causal conditions, the mind later gives rise to regret. Furthermore, this person is ridiculed by the wise because of conceiving what is not superior to be superior. Moreover, if a person regards what is not superior as superior, this is a sign of delusion. It is like a blind person who mistakes tiles and stones for gold and silver and is mocked and shamed by those who can see. Grasping at views has faults such as these.

Those who abandon wisdom and seek purification through observances such as ritual bathing are said to grasp at precepts and observances.

Question: Then can purification be attained without the need for moral discipline?

Answer: Moral discipline becomes pure through wisdom, for wisdom is its foundation.

Question: What faults are found in grasping at precepts and observances?

Answer: The faults described concerning grasping at views, as well as taking ordinary things to be complete and sufficient, and so forth, are also its faults. Moreover, because of grasping at precepts and observances, people undergo various sufferings in vain, such as enduring cold and heat; lying upon ashes, bare earth, tree roots, thorns, and the like; throwing themselves down precipices, leaping into fire, deliberately plunging headfirst into deep pits, and so forth. In a future life, they will also undergo the retribution of intense suffering. As a sutra states: “If the observance of imitating an ox is perfected, one will become an ox; if it is not perfected, one will fall into hell.”

Moreover, this person is one who goes from darkness into darkness, for by adopting this practice, that person suffers in the present life and will suffer again in a future life. Furthermore, this person incurs extremely grave offenses. Why is this? Because such a person takes what is contrary to the Dharma to be the Dharma, thereby destroying the true Dharma, and also maligns those who cultivate the true Dharma, causing many sentient beings to turn away from the true and pure Dharma and fall into the cycle of sin and wrongdoing. Because such a person accumulates many grave offenses, that person receives the retribution of the Avici hell.

It would be better not to practice at all than to practice a wrong path. Why is this? If a person has never practiced before, that person can easily be led to cultivate the Path. But one who has practiced what is wrong has corrupted the mind and therefore finds it difficult to enter the true Path. Moreover, even hostile bandits cannot cause people such decline and affliction as wrong views can. Why is this? Hostile bandits cannot defile a person as thoroughly as following wrong views and undertaking the heterodox observances of non-Buddhist paths, such as going naked without shame, smearing the body with ashes and dirt, plucking out the hair, and the like.

Furthermore, people of wrong views lose all worldly benefit and happiness: in the present they lose the pleasures of the five desires; in the future they lose the happiness of birth in a wholesome realm and the bliss of nirvana. If one seeks happiness but obtains suffering, and seeks liberation but becomes bound, should this not be called madness? Why is this? Through the causal condition of offering even a single meal, one may still attain birth in heaven. Yet this person practices wrong conduct, and even if that person gives away the whole body and life, it brings no benefit whatsoever.

CHAPTER ON THE SECONDARY AFFLICTIONS, NO. 134

When the mind is heavy and one wishes to close the eyes, this is called drowsiness. When the mind is withdrawn and separated from wakefulness, this is called sleep. When the mind is scattered among the various sense objects, this is called restlessness.

When the mind harbors a knot of anxiety—having done what should not have been done or failed to do what should have been done—this is called remorse. When the mind bends itself into false displays of goodness, this is called crookedness. When the mind flatters others in order to accomplish its aims, this is called deception.

When one commits evil oneself without knowing shame, this is called shamelessness. When one misbehaves before the assembly without knowing shame or fear, this is called lack of moral dread. When the mind pursues what is unwholesome, this is called heedlessness.

When one truly possesses no merit but displays oneself so as to make others believe that one does, this is called hypocrisy. When one exhibits unusual signs in pursuit of gain and support, using ingratiating speech to please others, this is called covetousness. When one desires to obtain another person’s property and therefore gives signs of wanting it, saying, for example, that a certain object is excellent, this is called hinting.

If, wishing to humiliate one person, one praises another, saying, for example, “Your father was pure and diligent, but you are not his equal,” this is called indirect disparagement. If one uses gifts already received to seek further gifts, saying, for example, “This is an offering newly presented by such-and-such a person,” such practices are called seeking gain through gain. If a person is afflicted by a fondness for sleep, this is called the illness of eyes heavy with sleep.

If one has a good dwelling and all the conditions necessary for practicing the path, yet remains continually dejected, this is called discontent. If a person habitually bends and slumps the body, so that it is ill-adjusted because of sleep and rest, this is called languor. If one does not know how to regulate the amount of food and drink, this is called immoderation in eating.

If one is incapable of diligent effort, this is called a regressing mind. If venerable elders give instruction and one feels neither respect nor awe, this is called irreverence. Delighting in evil people is called delighting in bad companions.

Such things are called subsidiary afflictions, because afflictions arise in dependence upon them.

CHAPTER 135: THE UNWHOLESOME ROOTS

The three unwholesome roots are greed, hatred, and delusion.

Question: Pride and the other afflictions should likewise be unwholesome roots. Why are only these three taught?

Answer: All afflictions arise from these three afflictions. Pride and the others are also aspects of delusion and therefore are not separately discussed. Moreover, these three afflictions are present in the minds of most sentient beings, whereas pride and the others are not so.

Furthermore, greed is an unwholesome root of hatred, for when something conflicts with what one covets, hatred consequently arises. Delusion is the root of both. Why is this?

If a person were free from delusion, that person would feel neither greed nor hatred. Moreover, the sutras teach that the ten unwholesome courses of karma arise from greed, hatred, and delusion; they do not say that these arise from pride and the others. Furthermore, there are only three kinds of feeling and no fourth.

Within these three feelings, one is driven by those three divisions of affliction. If pride and the others existed as separate roots, within which feeling would they operate? This truly cannot be explained.

Therefore, one should know that these three are the roots of all afflictions.

Question: Why does greed operate within pleasant feeling?

Answer: Because it is plainly seen to arise therein. As a sutra says: “A person who experiences pleasant contact rejoices, but does not rejoice in painful contact.” Because this person does not know in accordance with reality the arising, cessation, gratification, danger, and escape concerning feelings, the underlying tendency of ignorance operates within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Why is this?

Bound within the Formless Realm by the continuous succession of the skandhas, this person does not know it in accordance with reality and therefore forms the perception that it is quiescent, or the perception that it is liberation, or the perception that it is neither painful nor pleasant, or the perception of a self. Therefore, it is said that delusion arises within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

Question: Do these underlying tendencies operate within dharmas, or do they operate within sentient beings?

Answer: The mind of a sentient being arises in dependence upon dharmas; following the sentient being’s mind, the various feelings are experienced; and following these various feelings, greed and the other afflictions operate. Therefore, one should know that underlying tendencies arise in dependence upon dharmas and then operate within sentient beings. How can this be known?

If sentient beings have not yet eliminated these underlying tendencies, they are driven by them; when they have eliminated them, they are no longer driven by them. If the tendencies operated within dharmas, then because dharmas are always present, they should always operate and could never be eliminated. Moreover, things not included among sentient beings should also possess underlying tendencies.

If that were so, then just as a person possesses underlying tendencies, walls and the like would also possess them; and because a person possesses cognition, walls and the like should also possess cognition. This is truly impossible. Furthermore, if that were so, there could be no arhats, because if another person possessed underlying tendencies, one would possess them oneself as well.

Question: Before an underlying tendency is eliminated, it operates; after it has been eliminated, it no longer operates—is that so?

Answer: There are two kinds of underlying tendency: first, an underlying tendency having an object as its condition; second, an associated underlying tendency. Whether such a tendency has been eliminated or not, it still belongs either to those having an object as their condition or to those that are associated. Why, then, say that after elimination it no longer operates? If this were so, one would have to propose a third characteristic of underlying tendencies. Since no such characteristic can be stated, one should know that it does not exist. Moreover, an underlying tendency may take another realm as its object without operating there. Therefore, one should know that it operates only within sentient beings and not within dharmas.

Question: There are two kinds of underlying tendency: one has an object as its condition, and the other is associated. The underlying tendencies belonging to a sentient being are neither objects serving as conditions nor associated factors. How, then, can they operate?

Answer: This has already been answered: underlying tendencies arise in dependence upon dharmas and operate within sentient beings. As stated in the Abhidharma: “How many kinds of underlying tendencies operate within sentient beings of the Desire Realm?” If they did not operate within sentient beings, how could questions such as this be asked?

Question: If underlying tendencies operate within sentient beings, this contradicts the statement in the sutra that the underlying tendency of greed operates within pleasant feeling.

Answer: That statement is incomplete. Stated fully, it means: greed arises within pleasant feeling and then operates within the sentient being.

Question: This greed also arises in dependence upon form and the other sense objects. Why is it said here to arise only in dependence upon pleasant feeling?

Answer: Greed arises because of recollection, discrimination, joy, and the like; it does not arise merely from form and the other sense objects.

Question: Greed also arises in dependence upon painful feeling, as it is said: those who are happy do not seek, while those who suffer seek much. Why is it said to arise only from pleasant feeling?

Answer: Greed does not arise because of painful feeling. Being oppressed by suffering, that person develops greed for pleasant feeling.

Question: The underlying tendency of greed also operates within neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Why is only pleasant feeling mentioned?

Answer: This person regards neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling as pleasant and consequently develops greed. Therefore, it is said that greed operates within pleasant feeling. Because the three afflictions operate within these three kinds of feeling, only three are taught.

CHAPTER 136: MISCELLANEOUS AFFLICTIONS

Question: The sutras teach three influxes: the influx of sensual desire, the influx of existence, and the influx of ignorance. What constitutes each of these influxes?

Answer: In the Desire Realm, all afflictions apart from ignorance constitute the influx of sensual desire. In the Form Realm and the Formless Realm, all afflictions apart from ignorance likewise constitute the influx of existence. Ignorance throughout the three realms is called the influx of ignorance.

Question: How do the influxes increase?

Answer: These dharmas gradually increase from lesser to middling and from middling to greater. Moreover, because they encounter powerful conditions such as forms and the other sense objects, the influxes increase.

Question: Why are these three influxes also spoken of as seven influxes?

Answer: In reality, there are two kinds of influxes: those eliminated through seeing the principle of the path are the fundamental influxes, while those eliminated through contemplation are the fruits of the influxes. Five causal conditions assist the influxes; together these make seven, namely, the afflictions. The Buddha taught according to the meaning, and therefore spoke of three influxes, four floods, four bonds, four kinds of clinging, four knots, and so forth.

Question: The four floods are the flood of sensual desire, the flood of existence, the flood of views, and the flood of ignorance. What constitutes each of them?

Answer: Apart from views and ignorance, all afflictions of the Desire Realm are called the flood of sensual desire. The flood of existence in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm is defined in the same way. The various views are called the flood of views, and ignorance is called the flood of ignorance.

Question: Why is the flood of views separately taught among the floods, while it is not separately taught among the influxes?

Answer: Followers of non-Buddhist paths are for the most part swept away by attachment to views; therefore, the flood of views is separately taught among the floods. Because they cause beings to drift and sink, they are called floods; because they bind beings within the three realms, they are called bonds.

Question: The four kinds of clinging are clinging to sensual desire, clinging to views, clinging to precepts, and clinging to assertions of self. What are they?

Answer: Since there is no self, it is only through taking up the designation “self” that this is called clinging to assertions of self. If a person holds the view of self, that person becomes attached to one of two extremes: that the self is either permanent or impermanent. If one decisively declares it impermanent, one craves the five sensual desires; believing there is no future life, one becomes attached to present pleasures.

If one decisively declares it permanent, those of dull faculties observe precepts in the hope of attaining pleasure in a future life; those of somewhat sharper faculties think: “If the spirit is permanent, then suffering and pleasure do not change.” Believing that neither wrongdoing nor merit exists, they consequently give rise to wrong views. Thus, solely because of assertions of self, the four kinds of clinging arise.

Question: The four knots are the bodily knot of covetousness and envy, the bodily knot of anger, the bodily knot of clinging to precepts, and the bodily knot of attachment to the belief that only one’s own position is true. What are they?

Answer: When one covets another person’s possessions that have not been given, anger arises, and one then resorts to threats, rods, and the like. This is the root of contention among householders. It is also called following the extreme of pleasure, that is, adhering to the side of pleasure.

If a person who observes precepts wishes to purify those precepts, that person declares: “This alone is true; all else is false speech,” and consequently follows this dogmatic view. This is the root of disputes among renunciants. It is also called following the extreme of suffering, that is, adhering to the side of suffering.

The five skandhas are called the body. Because these four knots require bodily and verbal action to be completed, they are called bodily knots. Others say that these four dharmas can bind beings within birth and death and are therefore called knots.

Question: The five hindrances are sensual desire, anger, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. How should this be understood?

Answer: Because a person greedily pursues sensual pleasures, anger follows. As stated in the sutra: “From craving arise anger, envy, and other afflictions; deeds involving rods and the like all arise from sensual desire.” This person’s body and mind are impaired by greed and anger. After much exhausting activity, one desires sleep and rest. Once this person has slept and rested a little, greed and anger arise again and disturb the mind. Because the mind cannot attain meditative concentration, it runs after external objects, and restlessness consequently arises. When a person’s karma is impure, the mind is constantly troubled by remorse. Because of distraction and remorse, doubt continually arises in the mind: Is there liberation or not? This is as Prince Abhaya said to the novice Revata.

Question: Why are they called hindrances?

Answer: Sensual desire and anger can obscure the category of morality. Restlessness and remorse can obscure the category of concentration. Sloth and torpor can obscure the category of wisdom. Some, wishing to eliminate these hindrances, declare: “This is wholesome; this is unwholesome.” Yet a person may then doubt whether these things exist or do not exist. When fully developed, this doubt can obscure all three categories above. Because the power of these five obscures those three dharmas, they alone receive the name “hindrances.” Two of the hindrances are weak in power and must therefore be combined to constitute one hindrance. Moreover, these two hindrances arise from related causes and conditions and are therefore discussed together.

There are five causal conditions for sloth and torpor: heaviness of the eyelids, lack of delight, stretching the body, immoderate eating, and mental withdrawal and sinking. The causal conditions for restlessness and remorse are four dharmas: concern with relatives and villages, concern with countries, the belief that one will not die, and recollection of past amusements, laughter, and conversation. These are called their generative causes. Because their remedies are also alike, sloth and torpor likewise take wisdom as their medicine, while restlessness and remorse take concentration as their medicine. Because what they obscure is also alike, these two are combined as one hindrance.

These five dharmas may be hindrances or may not be hindrances. Those that are unwholesome and bound to the realm of desire are called hindrances; the others are not called hindrances.

The five lower fetters are sensual desire, anger, and clinging to precepts. Because they cause one to fall below, they are called lower fetters. For example, if the observance of the ox-precept is accomplished, one becomes an ox; if it is not accomplished, one enters hell.

Doubt obstructs freedom from desire, and the view of the body is the root of the other four; these together are called the five. Furthermore, because of greed and anger one cannot escape the realm of desire; because of the view of the body one cannot escape the mind’s attachment to self; because of clinging to precepts one cannot escape inferior dharmas; and because of doubt one cannot escape the state of an ordinary person.

Again, because of sensual desire and anger one cannot transcend the realm of desire; even if one passes beyond it, one is pulled back. The other three prevent one from transcending the state of an ordinary person and are therefore called lower fetters.

The five higher fetters include restlessness, which disrupts meditative concentration so that the mind is not quiescent. This restlessness arises in dependence upon grasping the characteristic of conceit. The mind’s grasping of this characteristic arises from ignorance, and consequently there is attachment to the realm of form and attachment to the formless realm. Because these five fetters are said to lead practitioners in training upward, they are called higher fetters. These five fetters are described in relation to the minds of practitioners in training, not in relation to ordinary persons.

Question: Why is restlessness said to be a fetter in the realms of form and formlessness, but not in the realm of desire?

Answer: Because there are no coarse afflictions in those realms, restlessness is conspicuous there. Moreover, because this restlessness has the power to destroy concentration, it is called a fetter. When these higher fetters are eliminated, liberation is attained. Some people form the notion that birth in the realms of form and formlessness is liberation. To prevent this error, the higher fetters are taught.

The five kinds of stinginess are stinginess regarding dwellings, households, gifts, praise, and the Dharma. Stinginess regarding dwellings means thinking: “Only I may come and go in this place; others must not be allowed.” Stinginess regarding households means thinking: “Only I may come and go in this household; no one else may do so. Even if others are here, I must be superior to them.” Stinginess regarding gifts means thinking: “Here, I alone shall receive offerings; no one else shall receive them.

Even if someone else receives them, that person must not receive more than I do.” Stinginess regarding praise means thinking: “Only I should be praised; no one else should be praised. Even if someone else is praised, that person must not be praised more than I am.” Stinginess regarding the Dharma means thinking: “I alone understand the meaning of the twelve divisions of the scriptures and deeply understand their secret meaning,” while refusing to explain it to anyone else.

Question: What faults are found in these five kinds of covetousness and stinginess?

Answer: Such dwellings and the like are shared by many people. A person who has already abandoned their own home and gone to live in a communal place, yet then gives rise to a miserly and stingy mind, is afflicted by a base affliction. Moreover, such a person ultimately has no share in the Dharma of liberation.

Why is this? Because this person cannot relinquish even things held in common, much less relinquish their own body of five skandhas. Furthermore, this person will be reborn among hungry ghosts and in other evil destinations.

Because this person’s mind is obscured by gains and support, they become conceited and disparage good people, and consequently fall into hell. Because such a person obstructs the giving of others, even if reborn in a human body, they will be poor and destitute. Furthermore, because their stingy mind deprives the giver of merit and the recipient of the offered object, they incur grave wrongdoing.

If one is stingy with the Dharma, one receives karmic retribution such as blindness: being blind from the mother’s womb, being born in a place filled with enemies, and lacking freedom. One also loses the embryo of sagehood and becomes an enemy and robber of all Buddhas throughout the three times and the ten directions. Continually wandering through birth and death, one remains a fool from whom good people keep their distance. Because one is separated from good people, there is no evil one will not commit.

Evil is of three kinds: evil evil, great evil, and evil within evil. Evil evil means killing, stealing, and the like. Great evil means killing oneself and also teaching others to kill themselves; being stingy oneself and also teaching others to be stingy. Evil within evil means being stingy with the Dharma oneself and also teaching others to be stingy with the Dharma.

Such a person confuses the Dharma and causes many people to fall into evil destinies. He also destroys the Path of the Buddha-Dharma. As stated in the sutras, stinginess concerning dwelling places has five faults: one does not wish virtuous bhiksus who have not yet arrived to come; when they have arrived, one scowls and is displeased, thinking of ways to make them leave; one conceals articles donated to the Sangha; and toward the various articles donated to the Sangha, one gives rise to the thought that they belong to oneself.

Stinginess concerning households has five faults: because one clings covetously to households, one shares the sorrows and joys of worldly people; one obstructs worldly people from performing meritorious deeds; one prevents recipients from obtaining gifts; and because one obstructs these two things, one is reborn as the child of a hungry ghost in the latrine of that household. Stinginess concerning giving has four faults: one constantly lacks the necessities of life, ruins the benefits of others and harms them, reviles good people, and constantly harbors sorrow and distress.

Stinginess concerning praise has five faults: upon hearing others praised, one’s mind is constantly defiled; throughout hundreds of thousands of lifetimes, one constantly lacks a pure mind; one humiliates good people, exalts oneself, and disparages others; and one causes oneself constantly to bear a bad reputation. Furthermore, all forms of stinginess share these faults: hoarding many possessions, fearing the assembly, envying many people, having a constantly defiled mind, living perpetually in isolation, and being born into a poor and lowly household.

Such are the immeasurable faults and offenses of the five kinds of stinginess.

The five kinds of mental barrenness are: doubting the Buddha, doubting the Dharma, doubting the precepts, doubting the teachings, and, when a bhiksu is praised by the Buddha or by great beings, maligning and attacking him with harsh speech. These are called the five kinds. Doubting the Buddha means giving rise to this thought: “Is the Buddha greater, or are Purana and the others greater?” Doubting the Dharma means wondering: “Is the Buddha-Dharma superior, or are the dog and rooster observances and other practices of non-Buddhists superior?” Doubting the teachings means wondering: “Can teachings such as counting the breaths lead to nirvana or not?” Maligning and attacking means angrily harming a good person without the slightest respect.

Because these five dharmas corrupt such a person’s mind, he is incapable of cultivating wholesome roots; hence they are called mental barrenness.

Question: Why does such a person give rise to doubts concerning the Buddha and the others?

Answer: Such a person is not learned, and therefore gives rise to doubts. Those who are learned have only slight and few doubts. Moreover, such a person is foolish and ignorant and does not know how to distinguish the Buddha-Dharma from heterodox teachings; therefore he gives rise to doubts.

Furthermore, he is unable to savor the meaning of the Buddha-Dharma; therefore he gives rise to doubts. Moreover, although he has neither studied nor read the Vedas, merely hearing others praise them causes him to esteem them. Furthermore, throughout successive lifetimes this person has had many grave wrong doubts.

Because his mind is constantly defiled, he gives rise to doubts concerning the Buddha and the others, like the Buddha’s attendant named Sunaksatra. Moreover, this person associates and works together with many people who hold wrong views, and they cause him to give rise to doubts. Furthermore, because he recites heterodox scriptures such as the Vyakarana and others, his right wisdom is impaired; therefore he gives rise to doubts.

Moreover, this person delights in forming wrong conceptions about the meanings of the various dharmas and is unable to grasp the intention of the authors of the scriptures; therefore he gives rise to doubts. Furthermore, from beginning to end, this person is unable to acquire the merits that benefit himself. For these reasons, he gives rise to doubts concerning the Buddha and the others.

The five kinds of mental bondage are as follows: if a person has not relinquished desire for his own body, he gives rise to covetous attachment. Because he has not relinquished the five kinds of sensual desire relating to the body, he clings to sensual pleasures. Furthermore, he associates with householders and renunciants, yet his mind takes no delight in the meaning of the Noble Teaching; and upon gaining a small benefit, he considers it sufficient.

Of these, the four kinds of bondage arise from sensual desire. Because a person has not relinquished inward bodily desire, he becomes attached and defiled with regard to external objects such as forms. Therefore, he delights in associating noisily with crowds.

Because he delights in noise and commotion, his mind takes no pleasure in the meaning of the Noble Teaching, which reveals the Dharma of quiescent cessation. Therefore, when he gains a small benefit from keeping the precepts, extensive learning, meditation, and the like, he considers it sufficient. Because he clings to this small benefit, he loses the great benefit.

A wise person should not cling to a small benefit and thereby impair a great one. Even if this person escapes the eight difficulties, he still faces the difficulty of obtaining a human body. Therefore, he should single-mindedly and diligently apply himself with vigor.

Furthermore, the condition of an ordinary person cannot be trusted. If he loses these fully endowed causes and conditions, then even if favorable conditions should later arise, he may ultimately remain unable to enter the Noble Path. Moreover, by not coveting small benefits, he can obtain the fruit of renunciation; when approaching death, he will have no regrets, and he will also benefit both himself and others.

Furthermore, if he does not cling even to meritorious qualities, how much less will he cling to unwholesome dharmas? Therefore, this is called right practice. Moreover, he cannot then be tainted by the faults of ordinary people.

Question: What are the faults of ordinary people?

Answer: The sutra states: “An ordinary person should use twenty dharmas to discipline and subdue his own mind. He should think thus: ‘1. I differ from laypeople only in the outward form of my clothing; 2.

Ultimately, I have attained nothing; 3. I may die because of unwholesome deeds; 4. And I may fall into the greatly terrifying ocean; 5.

I shall have to go to a place of fear; 6. I do not know the place of fearlessness; 7. Nor do I know the Dharma of the Path; 8.

I have not attained meditation; 9. I constantly endure bodily suffering; 10. It is difficult to escape the eight difficulties; 11.

Enemy bandits constantly pursue me; 12. The paths to all destinies remain open, and I have not escaped the evil destinies; 13. I am constantly bound by immeasurable wrong views; 14.

I have not yet guarded myself against the five heinous offenses; 15. Beginningless birth and death has no boundary; 16. Unless deeds are performed, neither offenses nor merits are acquired; 17.

Good and evil cannot substitute for one another; 18. If I do not cultivate wholesome dharmas, I shall certainly have no peace; 19. The good and evil already committed will ultimately never disappear; 20.

I may die while still undisciplined.’” By means of these twenty dharmas, one cannot be defiled. Furthermore, when this person has completed what ought to be done, his mind has no regrets. If he is one who clings, he cannot fulfill either the household life or the renunciant life.

Therefore, one should not cling to small benefits.

The seven kinds of latent tendencies:

Question: Why are the afflictions called latent tendencies?

Answer: Because throughout the continuous succession of birth and death they constantly follow and cling to sentient beings, they are called latent tendencies. They are like a nursemaid who constantly follows a small child; like an intermittent fever that has not yet been cured; like a debt whose interest increases day by day; like a venomous rat that has not yet been eliminated; like a dark mark on a sheet of heated iron; like the sprouting of a grain; like signing a document that makes oneself a servant; like a witness for one who adjudicates a matter; like knowledge accumulated little by little; like a craft continually practiced; and like the flame of a lamp continuing without interruption.

In this manner, they follow one after another without interruption and continually increase; therefore they are called latent tendencies.

Question: Are these latent tendencies associated with the mind or not associated with the mind?

Answer: They are associated with the mind. Why? Because craving and the others have already been described as the characteristics of latent tendencies. These characteristics of latent tendencies are associated with joy. If they were not associated with joy, this would be unreasonable. This joy, when present within pleasant feeling, is called the latent tendency of craving. Furthermore, craving is attachment and defilement. If it were not associated with the mind, attachment and defilement would be meaningless. Therefore, one should know that the latent tendencies are associated with the mind.

Question: That is not so. The latent defilements are not conjoined with the mind. Why?

Because a sutra says: “A small child does not yet have a mind of lust, much less is he capable of sexual desire, yet he is still driven by the latent tendency of sensual desire.” It also says that even without thought or discrimination, consciousness still abides dependent upon conditions. Moreover, a sutra says: “When the view of a self in the body is abandoned, all the latent defilements are completely abandoned.” Furthermore, the Noble Path and the defilements cannot exist simultaneously.

Therefore, when the Noble Path arises, the latent defilements not conjoined with the mind are abandoned. If this were not so, what would the Noble Path abandon? Again, if there were no latent defilement that is not conjoined with the mind, then when ordinary persons or trainees were in a wholesome or morally neutral state of mind, ought they not to be arhats?

Furthermore, latent defilements are the cause of bondage; when one is bound, the latent defilements flourish. Therefore, it is known that the latent defilements are not conjoined with the mind. Again, if a person in a wholesome or morally neutral state of mind is nevertheless said to possess latent defilements, then, unless there are latent defilements not conjoined with the mind, how could that person be said to possess them?

Therefore, it is known that the latent defilements are not conjoined with the mind.

Answer: That is not so. Some say that although a small child has no sensual desire, he still has the latent tendency of craving. This assertion is unreasonable.

A small child has not yet obtained the medicine that eliminates craving, and his sensual desire has not been exhausted; therefore, he is driven by the latent tendency of craving. It is like a person afflicted by a spirit: although the affliction has not yet manifested, he is still called a person afflicted by a spirit. Why?

Because the patient has not yet obtained the incantations and medicines that eliminate the illness. It is also like a fever that recurs once every four days: although it does not arise for two days, the person is still called one afflicted with fever. It is also like a scrofulous swelling that has not yet been healed and therefore manifests when thunder is heard.

In the same way, regardless of the state of mind one is in, so long as one has not obtained the medicine that eliminates the latent defilements, one is said not to have abandoned them. The other questions are also answered by this general reply. You say that even without thought or discrimination, consciousness still abides dependent upon conditions.

This too is because the latent defilements have not yet been abandoned. You say that when the view of a self in the body is abandoned, all the latent defilements are also abandoned. You maintain that although bondage is conjoined with the mind, it is said to be abandoned when it has not yet arisen.

The latent defilements are likewise: although they are absent when the Noble Path is present, they are still said to have been abandoned because a contrary Dharma has been attained. You say that the Path and the defilements do not exist simultaneously. Although they have not yet been abandoned, they are still said to be capable of existing.

You say that when ordinary persons or trainees are in a wholesome or morally neutral state of mind, they ought to be arhats. Arhats have already abandoned these defilements, whereas such persons have not. It is like someone who has not undertaken the rule of abstaining from meat: although he happens not to eat meat, he is not called one who abstains from meat.

Furthermore, because there are ignorance, wrong mindfulness, wrong reflection, and the like, any defilement not yet abandoned may arise. Because arhats lack these causes, they are not the same as other people. Again, some say that when a person is bound, the latent defilements flourish.

This assertion is unreasonable. The defilements flourish because they arise in inferior, intermediate, or superior degrees, not because one is bound. You say that a person in a wholesome or morally neutral state of mind is said to possess latent defilements.

It is because they have not yet been abandoned that the person is said to possess them. For these reasons, craving and the other latent defilements are not unconjoined with the mind. As for the eight wrong paths—wrong view through wrong concentration—because one does not know things as they truly are and understands them in an inverted manner, they are called wrong view through wrong concentration.

Question: Right livelihood and wrong livelihood are not separate from bodily and verbal karma. Why, then, are they taught separately?

Answer: It is difficult for renunciants to abandon wrong livelihood; therefore, it must be taught separately. Wrong livelihood means obtaining material support by means of deception and the other five practices; hence it is called wrong livelihood. To state it briefly, renunciants should not engage in occupations for their sustenance, such as serving as a royal envoy, trading, practicing medicine, and the like, nor should they take the money, grain, and other possessions of sentient beings. If they take them, it is all called wrong livelihood. Moreover, whatever the Vinaya prohibits as a means of sustaining oneself is called wrong livelihood. As a sutra says, a lay follower should not trade in five kinds of goods.

Question: By what means should one sustain one’s life?

Answer: One should seek alms in accordance with the Dharma. One should sustain one’s life by this means and should not practice wrong livelihood. Why? Because when the mind is unsettled, it destroys the wholesome Dharma, rendering one incapable of cultivating the Path. Moreover, a practitioner of the Path should think: “I entered the Buddha-Dharma for the purpose of cultivating the Path, not for the sake of earning a livelihood.” Therefore, those who delight in wholesome Dharma should cultivate pure livelihood. Furthermore, a bhiksu should abide in the Dharma of a bhiksu. If he practices wrong livelihood, it is not the Dharma of a bhiksu.

CHAPTER 137: THE NINE KNOTS

Craving and the other factors constitute the nine kinds of knots.

Question: Why, among all the views, are the two kinds of attachment taught separately?

Answer: Attachment to precepts and observances is difficult to escape from, just as a piece of wood floating into a whirlpool is difficult to free. Such persons are likewise. They think: “Through observing these precepts, I shall be reborn in heaven.” For this reason, they willingly cast themselves into deep ravines, throw themselves into fire, hurl themselves headfirst from high cliffs, and perform many other kinds of ascetic practices.

Moreover, worldly people do not perceive the faults in attachment to precepts and observances; therefore, the Buddha called it a knot. Furthermore, by relying upon this attachment to precepts and observances, one may abandon the Noble Eightfold Path. Moreover, because this is not the true Path, it is called adherence to the extreme of suffering.

Furthermore, attachment to precepts and observances binds renunciants, while sensual desires bind householders. Moreover, although those attached to precepts and observances may cultivate the practices of renunciants, they gain nothing at all. Furthermore, those attached to precepts and observances find no happiness in the present and undergo great suffering afterward.

For example, if one who observes the ox-vow succeeds in it, one becomes an ox; if one fails, one falls into hell. Moreover, because of this attachment to precepts and observances, one may slander the true Path and those who cultivate it. Furthermore, attachment to precepts and observances is the basis upon which followers of other paths give rise to pride.

They think: “By means of this Dharma, I can surpass everyone.” Moreover, because of attachment to precepts and observances, the sixty-nine schools each have doctrines differing from the others. Furthermore, attachment to precepts and observances is coarse and easy to perceive, and so many sentient beings cultivate it; the subtle and wondrous Path of wisdom is difficult to perceive, and therefore worldly people do not know how to cultivate it and obtain its benefits.

Moreover, this view can captivate people’s minds, and so foolish persons mostly cultivate this Dharma. Furthermore, it is called a gravely evil view because it opposes the true Path and practices a non-path. The reason those attached to views cling to false teachings and cannot relinquish them is the strength of that attachment.

Moreover, through the power of attachment to views, the knot is drawn ever tighter.

Question: In the Sutra of Sakra’s Questions, why is it said that among humans and devas only the two knots of stinginess and jealousy remain?

Answer: These two defilements are extremely base and corrupt. Why? Seeing sentient beings suffering from hunger and thirst, because of stinginess one cannot feel compassion and offer aid; seeing someone achieve a victory, one also gives rise to jealousy and harbors burning resentment.

For these reasons, one falls into a state of poverty and lowliness, is ugly, and possesses no dignity or virtue. Moreover, in Sakra, Lord of the Devas, these two knots were especially grave and frequently came to afflict his mind; therefore, the Buddha taught them for his sake. Furthermore, these two knots are conditions for grave offenses.

Why? Because grave evil karma is produced on account of these two knots. Moreover, among the three poisons, craving and anger can produce grave offenses.

Because craving and anger become intense, these two knots arise. Furthermore, these two knots can afflict and harm both men and women. They are also difficult to relinquish.

Why? Only by deeply cultivating a wholesome mind can one completely eliminate the disposition toward jealousy; only by deeply cultivating generosity can one entirely eliminate stinginess. To relinquish something of great value without perceiving karmic retribution is extremely difficult.

Just as it is difficult for a person to rejoice upon seeing even his own child achieve something superior to himself, how much more difficult is it when an enemy does so? Because these two knots depend respectively upon the dispositions of aversion and affection, they are extremely difficult to eliminate. For these reasons, the Buddha taught them separately.

End of Fascicle Ten of the Satyasiddhi-sastra