成實論

CHAPTER 138: MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

The author of the treatise says: Most afflictions are included within the ten fetters; therefore, this treatise should be composed on the basis of the ten fetters. The ten fetters are greed, anger, conceit, ignorance, doubt, and the five views.

Question: There are ten mental factors belonging to the great ground of afflictions, namely: lack of faith, indolence, false mindfulness, distraction, ignorance as an expedient, wrong reflection, false understanding, restlessness, and heedlessness. These factors always accompany every afflicted mind. How is this so?

Answer: The doctrine of association has already been refuted. Since mental factors arise separately, one by one, this assertion is untenable. Moreover, it is contrary to reason. How is this known? There may be an unwholesome mind accompanied by unwholesome faith, or there may be an unwholesome mind without faith. The same applies to diligence and the other factors. Therefore, it is known that these ten factors are not present in every afflicted mind. Furthermore, the claim that sloth-and-torpor and restlessness are present in every afflicted mind is also untenable. When the mind is sunken and dull, sloth-and-torpor is present, but it is not present in a restless mind. There are such errors as these.

Question: In the Desire Realm there are ten afflictions. In the Form Realm and the Formless Realm, anger is absent, but all the others remain. How is this so?

Answer: Jealousy and the other afflictions also exist in those realms. How is this known? A sutra says that a Brahma King told the Brahma assembly, “You must not go to the ascetic Gautama.

Remain here with me, and you will naturally reach the ultimate end of aging and death.” This is jealousy. Since jealousy exists there, anger must also exist. Another sutra says that a Brahma King took a bhiksu by the hand, led him out of the Sangha assembly, and said, “Bhiksu!

I too do not know where the four great elements entirely cease without remainder.” Thus, with a deceitful and flattering mind, he misled the Brahma assembly; this is called deceit and flattery. To say, “I am the Honored One who created the myriad things,” is arrogance and heedlessness. Since such evil afflictions also exist there, one should know that unwholesomeness exists there as well.

One master of the treatise says: Greed directed toward one’s parents, preceptor, acarya, and others is called wholesome greed; greed for the possessions of others and the like is called unwholesome greed; greed that neither harms nor benefits others is called indeterminate greed. Anger toward unwholesome dharmas, evil friends, and the like is called wholesome anger; anger toward wholesome dharmas and sentient beings is called unwholesome anger; anger toward insentient objects is called indeterminate anger.

Relying on conceit to eliminate conceit is called wholesome conceit; despising sentient beings is called unwholesome contempt. Ignorance and the other afflictions are likewise. Another master of the treatise says: If something is wholesome, it is not called an affliction.

Question: The personality view in the Desire Realm should be called indeterminate. Why? If the personality view were unwholesome, then all ordinary beings, who give rise to the notion of self, would necessarily fall into hell. Therefore, it should be called indeterminate. How is this so?

Answer: The personality view is the root of all afflictions. How could it be called indeterminate? Furthermore, if a person falls into an evil realm because others taught that a spiritual self exists, how could this be called indeterminate? The extreme view is likewise.

Question: If a person turns away from wrong view and falls into doubt, is that person unwholesome?

Answer: That person is not unwholesome. Why? It is preferable to fall into doubt rather than enter into wrong view.

Question: Some say that all afflictions bound to the Desire Realm can cause existence in the Desire Realm to continue, and that those bound to the Form Realm and Formless Realm do likewise. How is this so?

Answer: Only craving can cause the various modes of existence to continue, because one first delights and is then reborn. It is also said that craving is the accumulation of suffering. It is further said that, because of craving and delight in food and drink, sensual desire, and the like, beings are reborn according to their attachments. Wrong view and the other afflictions do not have such a meaning. Although the sutras say that rebirth occurs due to contempt and conceit, conceit first gives rise to craving, and only afterward does rebirth occur. Anger is likewise. Therefore, it is known that the various modes of existence continue in every case because of craving.

Question: Among the afflictions, how many are eliminated by seeing the principle of the Path, and how many are eliminated by cultivation?

Answer: Greed, anger, conceit, and the two kinds of ignorance are eliminated both by seeing the principle of the Path and by cultivation. The remaining six are eliminated only by seeing the principle of the Path.

Question: A trainee also has the notion of self. Is it merely that, although knowing it, the trainee does not manifest its characteristics, because a portion of the trainee’s personality view has not yet been eliminated?

Answer: This is conceit, not view; a view has the characteristic of manifesting itself.

Question: Some say that stinginess, jealousy, regret, deceit, flattery, and the like are eliminated only by cultivation. How is this so?

Answer: These are all concomitant dharmas, and they are also eliminated through seeing the principle of the Path as well as through cultivation. How is this known? When the Nirgranthas and others saw the Buddha’s disciples receiving offerings, they gave rise to jealousy.

This jealous mind ceased when they saw the Path. One should therefore know that it is eliminated upon seeing the principle of the Path. Some people formerly withheld gifts from the Buddha’s disciples out of stinginess, but upon seeing the Path they became able to make offerings.

Such stinginess is eliminated by seeing the Path. As in the case of Sunaksatra and others, regret is also eliminated by seeing the Path. As in the accounts of a stream-enterer falling into hell because of causes and conditions, taking an eighth-life body, and so forth, deceit, flattery, and the like are also eliminated only upon seeing the principle of the Path.

Question: Of the afflictions, how many are eliminated by seeing the Truth of Suffering, how many by seeing the Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path, and how many by cultivation?

Answer: It was previously said that six fetters are eliminated by seeing the principle of the Path. Four kinds are eliminated by seeing the Truth of Suffering and by seeing the Truths of Origin, Cessation, and the Path. Each of the remaining four fetters has five kinds.

Question: The personality view and the extreme view are eliminated only by seeing the Truth of Suffering; the two kinds of attachment to precepts are eliminated by seeing Suffering and seeing the Path. How is this so?

Answer: In truth, the afflictions are eliminated only when the Truth of Cessation is seen. Therefore, the personality view and the others are not eliminated merely by seeing the Truth of Suffering. Moreover, the personality view misconceives all Four Truths: the five skandhas are impermanent and arise from causes and conditions, whereas the self is held to be not impermanent and not born from causes; the five skandhas cease, whereas the self is held not to cease.

The Truth of the Path and the view of self are mutually opposed dharmas. Therefore, the four kinds of attachment to views are eliminated. The four kinds of extreme view are likewise eliminated.

Why? When a practitioner sees that the Truth of Suffering arises from the Truth of Origin, the view of annihilation is eliminated. When attachment to views is eliminated through the Truth of the Path, the view of permanence is eliminated.

Attachment to precepts also has four kinds. Since there are cause and effect, upon seeing the Truth of Suffering one knows that these precepts are suffering and that purity cannot be attained through them. This attachment must be eliminated by seeing the Truth of Suffering.

One knows that these precepts are a cause of suffering and that purity cannot be attained through them. This attachment must be eliminated by seeing the Truth of Origin. Because wrong view repudiates nirvana, one believes that purity can be attained through this attachment to views.

This attachment must be eliminated by seeing the Truth of Cessation. Because it repudiates the Path, it must be eliminated by seeing the Truth of the Path. Just as attachment to views depends upon wrong view and therefore has four kinds, attachment to precepts is likewise.

Question: If so, they cannot be called the ninety-eight fetters.

Answer: The fetters are eliminated according to their respective stages, not according to realms; therefore, they are not limited to the number ninety-eight.

Question: Greed, conceit, and the other four pervasive afflictions apart from wrong view are all associated with three faculties, excluding the faculties of bodily pain and mental distress. Anger is also associated with three faculties, excluding the faculties of pleasure and joy. Ignorance is associated with all five faculties. Wrong view and doubt are associated with four faculties, excluding the faculty of bodily pain. Anger, concealment of offenses, stinginess, and jealousy are not associated with the faculty of mental distress. How is this so?

Answer: The doctrine that such associations exist has already been refuted. This will be discussed later. Since afflictions do not exist within the five consciousnesses, the claim is untenable. Moreover, according to your doctrine, greed is associated with the faculty of joy, whereas stinginess is not. This is unreasonable, because stinginess is a part of greed. Likewise, it is unreasonable to claim that arrogance and conceit are not associated with the faculty of mental distress. Therefore, one should know that all the doctrines you establish are merely discriminations formed from your own recollections and conceptions.

Question: Some say that seeing the Truth of Suffering cuts off the five kinds of views, doubt, and greed, hatred, and conceit not associated with ignorance; and that seeing the Truth of Origin cuts off wrong view, attachment to views, doubt, and greed, hatred, and conceit not associated with ignorance. These are called the universally pervasive tendencies, while the remaining ones are not universally pervasive. How is this so?

Answer: All of them are universally pervasive. Why? Because they all mutually serve as causes and conditions for one another.

Furthermore, one gives rise to greed regarding one’s own wrong views, namely, that there is no suffering, up to and including that there is no Path. Clinging to these views, one becomes self-conceited; and upon hearing suffering taught, one gives rise to hatred and anger. Moreover, this greed can take the Truth of Cessation as its object; hatred can likewise resent nirvana; and one may also become self-conceited on account of nirvana.

The Path is likewise. It should be known that the other tendencies can also be universally pervasive. Furthermore, defilements binding one to the Realm of Desire can take the Form Realm as their object: because of greed, one delights in it; because of hatred, one resents and detests it; one becomes self-conceited on account of its dharmas and regards them as superior.

This is not confined to the Realm of Desire. Just as the defilements of the Realm of Desire can take the Form Realm as their object, views and other defilements of the Form Realm can also take the Realm of Desire as their object. The Formless Realm is likewise.

Furthermore, all these defilements can possess both general and particular characteristics. Why? Greed can possess the general characteristic of defilement with respect to all four continents.

Moreover, as stated in the Dīghanakha Sūtra: “All acceptance is greed; all non-acceptance is hatred.” One also becomes self-conceited because of these defilements, for all of them can give rise to bodily and verbal karma. Why? The sūtra says: “Having given rise to such views and understandings, one speaks of such matters,” namely, the existence of a Self and so forth.

Furthermore, all these defilements arise in the sixth consciousness; they do not exist in the other five consciousnesses. Why? Because conceptualization operates in the sixth consciousness, and all defilements arise from conceptualization.

If this were not so, then personality view and the like should also exist in the five consciousnesses. Why? Because when the eye sees form, one says, “I am able to see.” Doubt and the other difficulties are likewise.

Question: The sūtras speak of six groups of craving. Why, then, do you say that there are no defilements in the five consciousnesses?

Answer: The six courses of mental activity all operate within mental consciousness. They are called the six courses of mental activity only because the eye and the other faculties open the gates and guide them in. This matter is likewise. Furthermore, mental consciousness contains many distinctions concerning causes and conditions, whereas the other five consciousnesses do not. Therefore, it should be known that there are no defilements in those five consciousnesses.

CHAPTER 139: THE SEQUENCE OF ABANDONMENT

Question: Some say that defilements have nine grades: lower, middle, and upper—lower-lower, lower-middle, lower-upper; middle-lower, middle-middle, middle-upper; upper-lower, upper-middle, and upper-upper. Wisdom also has nine grades. Of these defilements, the upper-upper grade is abandoned first, and the lower-lower grade last. Lower-lower wisdom abandons upper-upper defilements, up to upper-upper wisdom abandoning lower-lower defilements. How is this so?

Answer: The defilements are cut off by innumerably many moments of mind. Why? The Buddha said in a sūtra: “It is like a skilled craftsman holding the handle of an axe in his hand. His eyes see the place worn by his fingers. Although each day he cannot distinguish how much has been worn away, when it is finally worn through, he knows that it has been worn through. A bhikshu is likewise. While cultivating the Path, although he cannot distinguish how many defilements have been extinguished today or how many were extinguished yesterday, when they are finally extinguished, he knows they are exhausted.” Therefore, it should be known that the defilements are completely extinguished only through immeasurable wisdom, not merely eight or nine grades.

Question: Relying upon which samadhi are these defilements extinguished?

Answer: Defilements can be extinguished by relying upon seven bases. As the Buddha said in a sūtra: “By relying upon the first dhyana, the influxes are exhausted, up to their exhaustion by relying upon the Sphere of Nothingness.” Moreover, the influxes can also be exhausted apart from these seven bases. As stated in the Susīma Sūtra, the influxes can be exhausted apart from the seven bases. Therefore, it should be known that the influxes can also be exhausted in the samadhi of the Realm of Desire.

Question: Defilements are abandoned only upon seeing the principle of the Path; there is no need to rely upon formless samadhi to abandon them, because this practitioner has already destroyed the characteristic of form. Is this so?

Answer: This has already been answered above: formless samadhi can take form as its object.

Question: Must one first proceed from the first dhyana and then sequentially become free from desire up to the second dhyana and so forth, or does this occur simultaneously?

Answer: It must occur sequentially, for one becomes free from desire for the first dhyana in order to give rise to the second dhyana and so forth.

Question: Is there also a sequence within the Realm of Desire?

Answer: Since the defilements are extinguished moment by moment, there must also be a sequence. For example, among those dwelling in the various heavens, the beings of the Yāma Heaven fulfill sexual desire by embracing one another; those of the Tuṣita Heaven fulfill desire by holding hands; those of the Nirmāṇarati Heaven fulfill desire by speaking with one another; and those of the Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven fulfill sexual desire by looking at one another.

Therefore, it should be known that the defilements of the Realm of Desire are also gradually brought to an end. Some say that beings are born there because of causes and conditions arising from merit, not because they have abandoned defilements. The distinctions exist because the objects of their desires are increasingly subtle.

Furthermore, those of dull faculties must embrace to fulfill desire, while, in progressive order among those of sharp faculties, merely looking at one another fulfills desire.

Question: Some say that the defilements abandoned through contemplation are abandoned gradually: first those binding one to the Realm of Desire are abandoned, and afterward those binding one to the Form and Formless Realms. Those abandoned through seeing the principle of the Path, however, are abandoned simultaneously. How is this so?

Answer: They are abandoned according to one’s seeing of the principle of the Path, but in truth all defilements are abandoned only upon seeing the Truth of Cessation. This has already been explained above. The statement that defilements are abandoned upon seeing the Truth means that personality view and the others are all abandoned only when the Truth of Cessation is seen. From the Dharma of Warmth onward, one cultivates contemplation of the impermanence and other characteristics of the five skandhas and thereby begins to abandon the defilements; but they are exhausted only when one sees the Truth of Cessation.

Question: Contemplating suffering in the Realm of Desire can cut off the knots of the Realm of Desire. The Truth of Origin is likewise. The same applies from the Realm of Desire up to the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. Contemplating cessation in the Realm of Desire can cut off the knots of all three realms. The Path is likewise. How is this so?

Answer: Knowledge of cessation can cut off the defilements. Therefore, what you say is unreasonable.

Question: The sūtras say that by contemplating the impermanence and other characteristics of the five skandhas, one attains the fruit of stream-enterer, up to the fruit of arhatship. Why do you say that defilements are abandoned only by contemplating the Truth of Cessation?

Answer: This wisdom contemplates the arising and cessation of the five skandhas together, and therefore can cut off the knots and latent tendencies. As a sūtra says: “A bhikshu contemplates: such is form, such is the origin of form, and such is the cessation of form.” It is also said that when one sees and knows the Dharma, one cuts off the defilements. Thus, we know that all defilements are cut off by seeing the Truth of Cessation.

Furthermore, defilements arise regarding the five skandhas within suffering. If one sees the cessation of the five skandhas as quiescent, peaceful, and secure, one thereby fully perfects the perception of suffering. Therefore, it should be known that when one sees the cessation of the skandhas, the defilements are exhausted.

It is said that because dharmas cannot be conceived, they are abandoned by relying upon a single mind of equanimity. That which cannot be conceived is cessation. If a practitioner sees that form cannot be conceived, up to consciousness also being inconceivable, then profound detachment is attained.

Furthermore, the three gates of liberation all take nirvana as their object. Because these gates of liberation can cut off defilements, there is no other method superior to them. Therefore, it should be known that only the Path that takes the unconditioned as its object can cut off defilements.

Thus, the method of abandoning defilements that you have described is unreasonable.

The author of the treatise says: The afflictions have immeasurable modes of differentiation such as these. Those who seek liberation must understand them. Why is this so?

Because by knowing that they are fetters and faults, one attains liberation, just as one can keep away from an enemy only after recognizing him, and can avoid a dangerous road only after knowing it to be dangerous. The afflictions are likewise. Moreover, the bonds of the afflictions are exceedingly tight, even tighter than the bonds with which the asura king Vemacitrin binds; therefore, even beings in the Realm of the Summit of Existence are still constantly bound by the afflictions.

Thus, one must understand their faults. Moreover, beings, even those in the Realm of the Summit of Existence, still fall back into lower states because they are unable to see and understand the faults of the afflictions. Moreover, because they have not severed the knots, they give rise to overweening pride, believing that they have already severed them, and later fall into doubt and regret.

Therefore, one must understand the faults of all the afflictions and not allow oneself to be deceived by them. Moreover, if beings abandon the pure and wondrous bliss of nirvana and instead crave the base pleasures of sensual desire, whatever such pleasure they experience is entirely due to the faults of the afflictions. If they sever all the afflictions, they obtain great benefit.

Therefore, they must understand the faults of the afflictions. Moreover, the dharmas that obstruct liberation are precisely the afflictions. If the afflictions are not severed, there is certainly no cause or condition for liberation.

Why is this so? Because the afflictions are the causes and conditions for having a body; wherever there are afflictions, there is a body, and wherever there is a body, there is suffering. Therefore, those who seek to escape suffering must diligently and vigorously strive to sever all the afflictions.

CHAPTER 140: CLARIFYING THE CAUSE

Question: The assertion that the afflictions are the causes and conditions of the body must be explained. Why is this so? Because some non-Buddhist schools do not believe this principle. Some say that this body has neither cause nor condition, but arises spontaneously like grasses and trees. Some say that all things are produced by the Lord Īśvara and various deities. Some say that all things arise from primal nature. Others say that they arise from the combination of atoms. Since there are theories generally of these kinds, should this matter not be explained?

Answer: It has already been established above that the body arises from karma. Since that karma is produced by the afflictions, the afflictions are taken to be the causes and conditions for the arising of the body.

Question: How do we know that karma exists because of the afflictions?

Answer: Following the conventionally designated mind is called ignorance. That conventionally designated mind is able to accumulate various kinds of karma; therefore, we know that karma exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Moreover, the karma of arhats is not accumulated and therefore does not come to fruition.

Thus, we know that karma is brought to completion by the afflictions. As the Buddha says in the sutra: “If a person attains knowledge and abandons ignorance, can that person still produce unwholesome karma, meritorious karma, and imperturbable karma?” “No, Blessed One.” Moreover, there is no uncontaminated karma; hence, we know that only what follows conventional designation can produce various kinds of karma. An uncontaminated mind does not follow conventional designation and therefore does not produce karma.

Furthermore, a trainee does not engage in conditioned activity, as the sutra says: “The trainee returns but does not engage in conditioned activity; he realizes cessation but does not act.” The characteristic of action is conditioned activity, and conditioned activity is called karma. Moreover, since the uncontaminated mind does not possess the characteristic of conditioned activity, there is no uncontaminated karma. Therefore, all karma that results in receiving a body is produced by the afflictions.

Furthermore, those who have severed the afflictions are no longer reborn. Thus, we know that the existence of a body is entirely due to the afflictions.

Question: Are not all beings initially without afflictions, with the afflictions arising only after birth, just as a person is born without teeth and grows them later?

Answer: It is not so. Those who possess afflictions display corresponding characteristics; for example, immediately upon birth they already utter cries such as “wa, wa.” Thus, we know that they are born together with the afflictions. Moreover, we presently observe that most beings are born in privies, pens, and similar places rather than upon bare stone. One should understand that they are born there because of attachment to odors, flavors, and the like. Therefore, we know that birth occurs because of the afflictions.

Question: Beings should then be unable to be born in the hells and similar realms. Why is this so? Because no one craves pleasure in the hells and such places.

Answer: Because of the powerful force of delusion, beings are born there through inverted perceptions in their minds. As death approaches, they see the hells from afar and mistakenly take them to be flowers in a pond; because they become attached to them, they are born there. As the sutra says: “If a person dies in a confined and noisy place, desiring a spacious place, that person is born among birds.

If one dies of thirst, one is born as a creature living in water. If one dies from cold, one is born in the cold icy hells. If one is attached to sexual desire, one is born among sparrows.

If one is attached to food and drink, one is born as a worm in a corpse.” Moreover, because of their attachments, beings commit various evils, and through the causes and conditions of these evils, they are compelled to undergo their karmic results. Furthermore, because of attachment to the body, various kinds of karma are able to produce their results. Why is this so?

Because, through the powerful force of delusion and attachment to one’s own body, afflictions such as pride arise. Through these, one is able to accumulate karma, and because of karma, one enters the various destinies.

Question: If the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions, then when a person severs the afflictions, should not the five skandhas cease to continue?

Answer: This body originally arose because of the afflictions. Although the afflictions have been exhausted, the body continues to exist and does not immediately cease because of their residual momentum. It is like stirring a wheel with a stick: although the stick is temporarily withdrawn, the wheel continues turning without stopping.

Question: If the body exists because of the residual force of previous afflictions and karma, then those who have severed the afflictions should likewise receive another body because of the residual force of their previous afflictions and karma.

Answer: Consciousness can abide only when it apprehends characteristics. This person has exhausted the residual force of previous karma and now skillfully cultivates the gateway of signlessness liberation; therefore, he does not receive a later body. Moreover, just as seeds placed upon a hot rock cannot sprout, so too, when the abodes of consciousness are heated by the fire of wisdom, the seed of consciousness cannot arise, and the continuity of a future life is severed.

Furthermore, because the causes and conditions of conditioned formations are incomplete, there is no further continuity. As the Buddha says in the sutra: “Consciousness is the seed, karmic formations are the field, craving is the water, and ignorance is the covering. Because of these causes and conditions, one receives a later body.” For an arhat, these conditions are incomplete, and therefore there is no later body.

One should understand that beings undergo birth because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Moreover, one who is free of afflictions possesses a mind that understands suffering and the other truths. Yet those who undergo birth are not observed to possess such minds.

Thus, we know that one who is free of afflictions cannot undergo birth.

Question: Stream-enterers and others possess minds that understand suffering and the other truths, yet when they are born, such minds are likewise not observed.

Answer: Arhats possess powerful wisdom that cannot be overcome by any affliction; therefore, when their lives approach their end, they are able to prevent further birth. The wisdom of stream-enterers and others is not equal to theirs, so they cannot be compared. Moreover, you say that just as teeth gradually grow later, so too do the afflictions.

This is unreasonable. Why is this so? Because arhats have burned away the afflictions with uncontaminated wisdom and therefore no longer undergo birth, just as roasted seeds can no longer sprout.

Furthermore, we presently observe that in this life the body is affected by the afflictions: because of sensual desire, the appearance of the body changes, and the same occurs with anger. Thus, we know that the body of the five skandhas in a future life is likewise produced by the afflictions.

Question: We also observe that the five skandhas arise through such causes and conditions as food and drink. Why, then, are food and drink not called the causes and conditions for receiving a body?

Answer: Food and drink depend upon the mind in order to produce form and the other skandhas. The afflictions are not like this. Moreover, without a basis, form and the other skandhas cannot arise. Thus, we know that the afflictions are the causes and conditions for receiving a body. Furthermore, we presently observe that sparrows and similar creatures are full of lust, venomous snakes and similar creatures are full of anger, and pigs and similar creatures are full of delusion. Therefore, one should understand that these beings certainly accumulated lust and other afflictions in previous lives and were consequently born among those species.

Question: That may explain the place of birth, but does it not remain the case that the causes and conditions of the afflictions were not previously accumulated?

Answer: If that were so, then sexual desire and the like would be without causes, which is impossible. Therefore, one should know that they arise only because causes and conditions were previously accumulated. Moreover, when afflictions such as greed and anger are intense, one commits killing and other offenses. Because of these offenses, one presently undergoes such sufferings as flogging, beating, and bondage. When the afflictions are slight, one is able to observe the precepts, cultivate virtue, and perform various wholesome deeds. Through the goodness of these precepts, one presently obtains such happiness as praise and material support. Just as decline and benefit in this present life are both due to the afflictions, one should know that the next life will also be so.

Question: If it is said that the body exists because of the afflictions, then there could be no coming and going in samsara. Why? Because when the afflictions are intense, one falls into an evil realm. Once the body has undergone punishment, the afflictions increase still further, and there would certainly be no cause for liberation. Thus, one could not be reborn in a good place. If a body enjoys merit and that merit consequently increases, one would never again be reborn in an evil place. If so, there would be no coming and going in samsara.

Answer: Although that person falls into an evil place, he may occasionally give rise to a wholesome mind; although born in a good place, he may give rise to an unwholesome mind. Therefore, the coming and going of samsara does not cease. Moreover, according to the degree to which greed and the other afflictions diminish, one is reborn in a good place; according to the degree to which greed and the other afflictions increase, one is reborn in an inferior place, like pigs, dogs, and the like.

Those whose afflictions diminish are reborn in good places. Thus, because their afflictions are slight, they can cultivate such merits as generosity and observance of the precepts and are reborn in the heavens of the Six Desire Realms. By ending the mind of sensual desire, they attain the supreme bliss of dhyana.

Because of attachment to form, they attain the supreme bliss of samadhi. When all fetters are completely untied, they attain the incomparable nirvana. Therefore, one should know that this body exists because of the afflictions.

Moreover, we presently see inferior lands inhabited by sentient beings, and evil people dwelling in inferior places, all because of attachment. One should know that the places where sentient beings dwell in samsara are likewise due to attachment, just as moths, attached to the radiance of light, have their bodies burned by lamps. Such attachment is not born of wisdom.

Why? Because those moths do not know that contact with the lamp’s flame is painful, and so they cast themselves into it. Likewise, the painful bodies that sentient beings subsequently undergo are all born through the causes and conditions of ignorance, craving, and attachment, just as fish swallow baited hooks and deer run after a hunter’s imitated call: because of attachment, they bring about the calamity of death.

Again, it is like a person who, because of attachment, travels to a distant and unfamiliar region and is unable to return home. One should know that all rebirth occurs because of the afflictions. Again, so long as the root of craving has not been pulled out, the tree of suffering always remains.

As the Buddha said: “If a tree’s root is not pulled out, then even though its trunk is cut down, it will still put forth shoots; when the tendency of craving has been pulled out, suffering is repeatedly undergone.” Moreover, this body is impure, impermanent, painful, empty, and not-self. Were it not for ignorance, what wise person would crave this decaying and painful thing? It is as though one could deceive a blind person by claiming that a filthy garment was a precious robe.

Likewise, when blinded by ignorance, one can accept the faults of the impure five skandhas. Furthermore, because of the notion of self, one accepts the body and, although it is painful, cannot abandon it. Without the notion of self, one could leave it far behind.

As the Venerable Sariputra said: “When a pure observer of the precepts who has attained the Path is about to die, he rejoices as though breaking a bowl of poison.”

Therefore, one should know that the body exists through the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Moreover, some people, because they lack wisdom, are attached to this body. It is like a small painted chest filled with impure things: before its lid is opened, it seems pleasing and delightful, but when it is opened, nothing but a foul stench emerges.

It is also like a dark house filled with venomous snakes: before a lamp shines upon them, one delights in and clings to the house, but upon seeing them, one immediately flees. Sentient beings are the same. So long as ignorance remains, they delight in the world; when their eyes are opened, their minds become detached, weary, and disgusted.

Thus, craving is the root of accepting a body. Why? Because craving gives rise to seeking.

Seeking is of two kinds: seeking sensual desire and seeking existence. Seeking present sensual pleasures is called seeking sensual desire; seeking a future body is called seeking existence. Therefore, one should know that craving is the root of accepting a body.

Moreover, attachment to the five skandhas immediately gives rise to the view of a body. It is said: “This self is the appropriation of assertions about a self; thus, one appropriates.” Based upon this kind of appropriation, the other three kinds of appropriation arise. Appropriation is the cause and condition of existence; existence is the cause and condition of birth.

Therefore, one should know that the afflictions are the root of the body. Moreover, this body is entirely suffering. With regard to this painful body, one gives rise to the inverted perception that it is pleasurable.

From this inversion concerning pleasure arises inverted craving; because of this inverted craving, one can accept a future body. Therefore, one should know that the body exists through the causes and conditions of craving. Moreover, this body remains alive through the causes and conditions of nutriment.

Because one craves coarse material food, “edible nutriment,” one cannot transcend the Desire Realm. As stated in the Chapter on Karma, through craving fragrances and flavors, one is born in latrines and the like. Because of attachment to contact, “contact as nutriment,” one is born in a womb.

Because of attachment to warm and cool contact, one is born from an egg or in moisture. None of these transcend the Desire Realm. Based on these three kinds of contact, the three kinds of feeling arise; hence it is said that contact is the cause and condition of feeling.

Volitional nutriment is likewise. One makes a vow wishing to obtain a body in a future life: “I shall do this.” Failing to see and understand that consciousness is the root of craving for nutriment, “consciousness as nutriment,” one is able to produce a future body. These four kinds of nutriment all arise from craving.

All sentient beings remain alive through nutriment; therefore, one should know that craving is a cause and condition of birth. Moreover, there are four modes of birth: birth from an egg, birth from a womb, birth from moisture, and birth by transformation. Because of sexual craving, beings are born from eggs and wombs.

Because of craving fragrances, flavors, and the like, they are born in damp places. According to the object of their craving, when they give rise to weighty karma, they undergo birth by transformation.

Therefore, one should know that the differences among the modes of birth are all due to craving. Moreover, there are four ways of accepting a body: one may be able to kill oneself but others cannot kill one, and so forth. All four exist because of differences in craving.

Therefore, one should know that craving is the cause and condition for the existence of the body. Moreover, there are the four stations of consciousness: consciousness abides in dependence upon form, rests upon form, takes form as its condition, and is moistened by delight; the same is true of feeling, perception, and formations. Yet consciousness is not said to be a station, because when consciousness awakens, there are no afflictions.

Therefore, one should know that the body exists through the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Moreover, all twelve links of dependent origination are due to ignorance. Why?

Because the mind that exists by provisional designation is called ignorance. Based upon this ignorance, karmic formations arise: meritorious formations, sinful formations, and imperturbable formations. Wishing to bring peace and happiness to sentient beings is called a meritorious formation; causing suffering and distress to sentient beings is called a sinful formation; concentrating the mind upon loving-kindness, compassion, and the like is called an imperturbable formation.

According to these formations and karmic deeds, consciousness abides in a body in the next life. Depending upon consciousness arise name-and-form, the six sense bases, contact, and feeling. These four links are the results of the afflictions and karma of a previous life.

In turn, based upon these, craving arises. Craving, appropriation, and existence are afflictions and karma capable of producing birth, aging, death, and the like in a future life. Thus, the twelve factors of existence continue one after another, all taking ignorance as their root.

Therefore, one should know that the body exists through the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Moreover, samsara is beginningless. How is this known?

A sutra says: “Through the causes and conditions of karma, the eye and the other faculties come into existence. Because of craving there is karma, and because of ignorance there is craving. Ignorance exists because of wrong attention; wrong attention, in turn, arises through the eye as cause and form as condition, and from delusion.” Therefore, one should know that the revolving of samsara has no beginning.

If it were said that the body is caused by the Lord God and the like, then there could be no beginningless existence; but this is impossible. Therefore, one should know that the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Moreover, when the afflictions are completely extinguished, liberation is attained. Furthermore, the bodies of sentient beings are of many diverse kinds. If they were caused by the Lord God and the like, they should not be diverse. Because karma and the afflictions are of many kinds, bodies are likewise not all the same.

Moreover, there are twenty faculties. Because of the six faculties, the six consciousnesses arise. Among these are the male and female faculties. Because these dharmas continue without interruption, this is called the life faculty. What is the basis of this life faculty? It is what is called karma. This karma is caused by the afflictions. Since the afflictions depend upon feeling, the five kinds of feeling are taken as their basis. In this way, birth and death continue successively. By relying upon such faculties as faith, that succession is brought to an end. Thus, through the twenty faculties, beings come and go in birth and death. One should therefore know that the body exists entirely because of the afflictions.

Moreover, those who seek liberation cultivate the categories of morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation. For what purpose are these dharmas cultivated? They are all for the sake of extinguishing the afflictions. Seeing this benefit, the wise rely upon these categories. One should therefore know that the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions.

Moreover, the afflictions are extinguished in stages: by extinguishing the three fetters, one attains the fruit of stream-entry; by gradually weakening sensual desire and the other afflictions, one attains the fruit of once-returning; by completely extinguishing the fetters of the Desire Realm, one attains the fruit of non-returning. It is likewise so within the meditative concentrations: when all are successively completed, one attains the fruit of arhatship. Thus, as the afflictions are extinguished in stages, the body is also gradually extinguished accordingly. If the body were produced by the Lord God and the like, it should not be extinguished gradually. One should therefore know that the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions.

Moreover, all good persons must completely sever such afflictions as craving, because they certainly perceive that craving and the like are causes and conditions for suffering harm and decline in this life and in future lives; therefore, they seek to sever them. If this were not so, they would not seek to sever them. Even those who say that the body is caused by the Lord God and the like still seek to sever sensual desire and the other afflictions. One should therefore know that sensual desire and the like are the causes and conditions for the existence of the body.

Moreover, the wise attain liberation through wisdom. One should therefore know that beings are bound because of ignorance. Thus, one should know that the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions.

Moreover, the Buddha said in the sutras: “Only when craving and delight are completely extinguished is right liberation attained. Why is this? The eye, visible forms, and the like are not called bonds; craving and delight alone are called bonds. Because craving and delight are destroyed, the mind attains right liberation.” Because it is rightly liberated, the mind is then able to enter nirvana. One should therefore know that the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions.

Moreover, liberation is attained through emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness. One should therefore know that the body exists because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions. Why is this? By contemplating all dharmas as empty, one sees that no sign can be apprehended; because signs are extinguished, one does not wish for a future body. Therefore, emptiness is taken as a gateway to liberation. The contrary of this constitutes bondage. For all the foregoing reasons, one should know that the body exists because of the afflictions. This matter has now been clearly explained. End of the Collection of the Truth of Origination.

FIRST CHAPTER ON ESTABLISHING CONVENTIONAL DESIGNATIONS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE TRUTH OF CESSATION, CHAPTER 141

The author of the treatise says: The extinction of the three kinds of mind is called the Truth of Cessation. These are the mind of conventional designation, the mind that apprehends dharmas, and the mind that apprehends emptiness.

Question: By what are these three kinds of mind extinguished?

Answer: The mind of conventional designation is extinguished either through the causes and conditions of wisdom arising from extensive learning or through the causes and conditions of wisdom arising from reflection. The mind that apprehends dharmas is extinguished by the wisdom of emptiness during the Stage of Warmth and the other stages. The mind that apprehends emptiness is extinguished upon entering the concentration of cessation; alternatively, when one enters nirvana without remainder and its continuity is severed, this is called extinction.

Question: What is called a conventional designation?

Answer: Distinctions exist only on the basis of the skandhas. For example, on the basis of the five skandhas, one speaks of a person; on the basis of form, smell, taste, and touch, one speaks of a jar and the like.

Question: Why are these regarded as conventional designations?

Answer: The Buddha said in a sutra: “Just as the assembly of a wheel, axle, and other parts is called a chariot, so the assembly of the skandhas is called a person.” Furthermore, the Buddha told the bhikshus: “All dharmas are impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self. They arise from many causes and conditions and possess no fixed nature. There are only names, only conceptions and recollections, and only functions.” On the basis of these five skandhas, many names arise, such as sentient being, person, god, and so forth. Because that sutra denies the real existence of such entities, it says that there are “only names.”

Moreover, the Buddha taught two truths: ultimate truth and conventional truth. Ultimate truth consists of dharmas such as form, as well as nirvana. Conventional truth consists only of conventional designations, which have no intrinsic substance. For example, a jar is formed through the causes and conditions of form and other dharmas, and a person is formed through the causes and conditions of the five skandhas.

Question: If conventional truth does not exist within the ultimate truth, why is it necessary to teach it?

Answer: Sentient beings in the world accept and employ conventional truth. How is this known? Even when fire is merely spoken of, they believe and accept what is said. The Buddhas and noble sages wish the world to abandon conventional designations; therefore, there is conventional truth, also called worldly truth. As the Buddha said in a sutra: “I do not dispute with the world, but the world disputes with me.” This is because the wise have no need for contention.

Moreover, people in ancient times, wishing to make use of things, established names as soon as they wished to designate an object, calling it a jar and so forth. If they merely pointed directly to the dharma itself, it could not be practically used. Therefore, conventional truth is taught.

Furthermore, when the two truths are taught, the Buddha-Dharma remains pure: because of the truth of ultimate meaning, the wise cannot surpass it; because of conventional truth, the foolish do not dispute it. Moreover, when the two truths are taught, one does not fall into annihilationism or eternalism, nor into wrong views or the extremes of suffering and pleasure; karma, its results, and so forth can all thereby be established.

Furthermore, conventional truth is the foundation of the Buddhas’ teaching and transformation of beings, as when it is taught that generosity and observance of morality yield the karmic result of rebirth in a wholesome destination. When the mind has been regulated and softened by these teachings, it becomes capable of receiving instruction in the path; only afterward is the principle of ultimate meaning taught. Thus, the Buddha-Dharma is not profound and urgent at the outset, but, like the great ocean, becomes gradually deeper. Therefore, conventional truth is taught.

Moreover, only when one has developed the path of wisdom can the true Dharma be taught to one. Thus the Buddha thought: “The bhikshu Rahula has now developed the path of wisdom; I shall teach him the true Dharma.” This is like an abscess: when it has fully ripened, it is easy to break open, but when it has not yet ripened, it is difficult. In the same way, conventional wisdom is first used to regulate and soften the mind; only afterward is ultimate wisdom used to break it apart.

Moreover, a sutra says: “First discern and distinguish all dharmas; only afterward can nirvana be known.” The practitioner first determines whether dharmas exist as conventional designations or truly exist. Only afterward can the practitioner realize the Truth of Cessation.

Furthermore, the afflictions are coarse at first and subtle afterward, and they are extinguished completely only in sequence: just as one first employs such characteristics as hair and body hair, and only afterward employs the characteristic of emptiness to extinguish the characteristics of form and so forth, like using one wedge to remove another wedge. Therefore, conventional truth is taught.

Furthermore, by relying on conventional truth, the principle of the Middle Way can be established. Why is this? Because the five skandhas arise in succession, there is no annihilation; because they perish from moment to moment, there is no permanence. Freedom from annihilation and permanence is called the Middle Way. As stated in the sutra: “Seeing the arising of the world, one eliminates attachment to nonexistence; seeing the cessation of the world, one eliminates attachment to existence.” Because there is conventional truth, one can see arising and see cessation. Therefore, conventional truth is taught.

Furthermore, because of conventional truth, all the teachings of the Buddha possess true meaning, including such approaches as self and no-self. If no-self is taught from the standpoint of conventional truth, there is no fault; if no-self is taught from the standpoint of ultimate truth, it is also true. Furthermore, because of conventional truth, there are difficult questions that are set aside and left unanswered; but if one speaks from the standpoint of real dharmas, they can all be answered.

Furthermore, if sentient beings truly exist, that is extreme delusion. If one says that they truly do not exist, one also falls into delusion. Why is this? Because these two attachments—to existence and nonexistence—lead respectively to permanence and annihilation. Practitioners may be led out of the extreme of existence only to fall into the extreme of nonexistence. If there were no conventional truth, how could they escape these extremes?

Furthermore, if one has not yet attained the wisdom of true emptiness and says that sentient beings do not exist, this is a wrong view, for it denies the sentient beings who undergo birth and death; therefore, it is called a wrong view. If one has attained the wisdom of emptiness and says that sentient beings do not exist, there is no fault. As stated in the sutra: “An arhat bhikshuni asked Mara: ‘What do you take to be a sentient being? There is only an empty heap of the five skandhas; in truth, no sentient being exists.’”

It is also said that this body of five skandhas continues in succession yet is empty, possessing nothing whatsoever. It is like an illusion, like a magical transformation that deceives ordinary beings. It is called an enemy and a thief, like an arrow and like an abscess. It is suffering, empty, and without self; it possesses only the characteristics of arising, ceasing, decay, and destruction.

Question: Both are thoughts that nothing whatsoever exists. Why, then, is one called a wrong view while the other is called ultimate truth?

Answer: If one has not yet given rise to the wisdom of true emptiness, then because one still has the thought of self, upon hearing the teaching of no-self one immediately becomes afraid. As the Buddha said: “If ordinary beings hear of emptiness and no-self, and that there will be no further activity, they become greatly terrified.” Therefore, one should know that those who have not attained the wisdom of emptiness fear nirvana because they still possess the thought of self; this is a wrong view. Those who have attained the wisdom of true emptiness know that things have always been empty and therefore have no fear.

Furthermore, if one has not yet realized true emptiness but sees that nothing exists, one falls into an evil view, namely, the wrong view of annihilation. If, by first relying on conventional truth, one knows that a self conventionally exists and believes in karma and its results, and afterward contemplates the characteristics of all dharmas as impermanent, arising, and ceasing, one gradually realizes cessation. When the thought of self is no more, the mind of craving is extinguished. If such a person hears that nothing exists, there is no fault. Therefore, conventional truth is taught.

Furthermore, certain non-Buddhists slander the Buddha, saying: “The Shramana Gautama destroys the true Spirit.” Therefore, the Buddha said: “By conventional truth, I teach that sentient beings exist. With clear knowledge and right view, I explain that sentient beings pass back and forth through birth and death. This is called right view.” It is only because of erroneous thought that ordinary beings say that sentient beings truly exist where, in truth, no sentient being exists. Therefore, only this erroneous thought is refuted; sentient beings are not refuted.

It is like such objects as jars, which are spoken of by provisional designation. Among their components, not all the forms and so forth are the jar, nor does a jar exist separately from the forms and so forth. Likewise, the skandhas of form and so forth are not the sentient being, nor does a sentient being exist separately from the skandhas of form and so forth.

Just as the body, form, and so forth are established through provisional designation, so too the characteristic of cessation is established in relation to form and so forth. To illustrate this concise meaning so that it may be readily understood: a painted lamp is also called a lamp, yet in truth it has none of the function for which something is called a lamp. Likewise, although one speaks of a jar as existing, it does not truly exist; although one speaks of the five skandhas, this is not from the standpoint of ultimate truth.

CHAPTER 142: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PROVISIONAL DESIGNATION

Question: How do we know that objects such as jars exist by provisional designation and are not truly real?

Answer: In what exists by provisional designation, a characteristic can be indicated; in what is truly real, no such indicated characteristic can be found. For example, one may say, “This form is the form of a jar,” but one cannot say, “This form is the form of form,” nor can one say that feeling and the other skandhas are form.

Furthermore, a lamp is an implement whose form is capable of illuminating and whose tangible component is capable of burning. Real dharmas are not found to be like this. Why is this? Consciousness does not employ some other consciousness as its instrument, nor does feeling employ some other feeling as its instrument. Therefore, one should know that whatever possesses instruments exists by provisional designation.

Furthermore, what exists by provisional designation receives its name through being constituted by other dharmas. For example, shape is constituted on the basis of form and so forth, whereas a real dharma is not constituted on the basis of other dharmas. Why is this? Feeling, for example, is not constituted on the basis of another dharma.

Furthermore, what exists by provisional designation has many capabilities. A lamp, for example, can illuminate and can burn. Real dharmas are not found to be like this. Why is this? Feeling, for example, cannot both feel and cognize.

Furthermore, the designation “chariot” abides in the wheels, axle, and so forth, whereas the designations of form and so forth do not abide in an object. There is this distinction.

Furthermore, the wheels, axle, and so forth are the causes and conditions that constitute a chariot, yet among them there is no designation “chariot.” Thus, among the causes and conditions of a chariot there is no dharma that is the chariot; the chariot is constituted only in dependence upon them. Therefore, one should know that a chariot is a provisional designation.

Furthermore, through the designations of form and so forth, form and so forth can themselves be expressed; but through the designation “jar” and the like, the jar and the like cannot themselves be expressed. Therefore, one should know that jars and the like are provisional designations.

Furthermore, regarding what exists by provisional designation, the mind shifts and is not fixed. For example, when a person sees a horse, he may say that he sees a horse, or that he sees the horse’s tail, or that he sees the horse’s body, or that he sees its skin, or that he sees its hair. Or he may say that he hears the sound of a zither, or that he hears the sound of its strings. Or he may say that he smells a flower, or that he smells the flower’s fragrance.

One may speak of tasting butter, or of tasting the flavor of butter. One may speak of touching a person, or touching a person’s body, touching a person’s arm, touching a person’s hand, touching a person’s finger, or touching a joint of the finger. Conceptual consciousness shifts among notions concerning a sentient being: it calls the body a sentient being, or the mind a sentient being.

It says that form and the other dharmas are the jar, or that apart from form and the other dharmas there is a jar. In all such cases, the mind remains firmly unmoved with regard to real dharmas. One cannot say that what sees form also sees sound and the other objects.

Furthermore, among all knowable dharmas, one cannot say that what is “also called existent” truly exists, for it exists merely as a designation. Why is this? Because dharmas such as form are not included among those knowable things of which nothing can be said.

Furthermore, the intrinsic characteristics of dharmas such as form can be expressed, whereas the intrinsic characteristics of a jar and the like cannot be expressed. Therefore, one should know that they exist merely as designations. Some teach that the characteristics of a mere designation are characteristics found in various constituents, but not within the mere designation itself.

As a sutra says: “Karma is the characteristic of the wise and the unwise.” If body, speech, and mind vigorously give rise to wholesome karma, one is called wise. If body, speech, and mind give rise to unwholesome karma, one is called unwise. Bodily and verbal karma depend upon the four great elements, while mental karma depends upon the mind.

How can these three things be called wise or unwise? Therefore, one should know that a mere designation has no intrinsic characteristic. Furthermore, although the characteristics of a mere designation are found in various constituents, they are not a single characteristic.

For example, it is said that a person undergoes painful affliction, as though pierced by a sharp point, and that the mind is distressed and the body deteriorates; this is a characteristic of form. Feeling is the characteristic of feeling, yet it too is spoken of in relation to a person. As the Buddha said: “Both the wise and the foolish experience suffering and pleasure, but amid suffering and pleasure the wise do not give rise to craving or anger, nor do they grasp at greater or lesser amounts, and so forth.” Perception is the characteristic of perception, yet it too is spoken of in relation to a person, as when one says, “I see light;

I see form.” The arising of volitional activity is the characteristic of formations, yet it too is spoken of in relation to a person, as when one says that this person gives rise to meritorious formations, as well as sinful formations and imperturbable formations.

Cognition is the characteristic of consciousness, yet it too is spoken of in relation to a person, as when one says that a wise person knows dharmas just as the tongue tastes flavors. Therefore, if something is spoken of in relation to various constituents and possesses many characteristics, it is a characteristic of a mere designation. The characteristics of form and the other dharmas are not found in various constituents, nor do they possess many characteristics.

Furthermore, whatever dharma is subject to all the latent defilements exists merely as a designation. Real dharmas are not subject to the latent defilements, because it is persons whom these latent defilements subject. Furthermore, cognition does not arise with regard to a mere designation.

Cognition first arises with regard to form and the other dharmas, and only afterward, through erroneous mental discrimination, does one say, “I see a jar,” and so forth. Furthermore, knowledge of a jar must depend upon form and the other dharmas. Why is this?

Because only on account of form, odor, flavor, and tangible qualities is it called a jar. Knowledge of a real dharma, however, does not depend upon anything else. Furthermore, doubt arises with regard to a mere designation, as when one wonders whether something is a bare tree or a person.

But with regard to form and the other dharmas, no doubt arises as to whether form is sound.

Question: With regard to form and the other dharmas, is there not also doubt as to whether they exist or do not exist?

Answer: It is not so. If one sees form, one certainly does not doubt whether it is sound. It is only because of other causes and conditions that one doubts whether form exists or does not exist. For example, after hearing it said that form is nonexistent, one sees form and then doubts whether it exists or does not exist. Only when one sees the truth of cessation does this doubt cease.

Question: With regard to the truth of cessation, is there not also doubt as to whether cessation exists or does not exist?

Answer: Doubt arises regarding what is apprehended, not regarding the truth of cessation. Hearing the assertion that cessation exists, while also not apprehending nonexistence, one doubts whether it exists or does not exist. At that time, this person does not see the truth of cessation.

Why is this? Because one who sees the truth of cessation has no such doubt. Therefore, one should know that whatever gives rise to doubt exists merely as a designation.

Furthermore, if many cognitions arise with regard to one thing, that thing exists merely as a designation, as with a jar and the like. This does not occur with real dharmas. Why is this?

Because consciousnesses such as auditory consciousness do not arise with regard to form. Furthermore, whatever is included within many ayatanas exists merely as a designation, as with a jar and the like. Therefore, some say that mere designations are included within four ayatanas.

A real dharma cannot be included within many ayatanas. Furthermore, whatever has no intrinsic substance yet is capable of functioning exists merely as a designation. For example, one speaks of a person acting, although the substance of the person and the substance of the karma truly cannot be apprehended.

Furthermore, all discriminations, such as those of enemy and friend, are mere designations and do not exist among real dharmas. Why is this? Because if one directly attends only to dharmas such as form, no perception of enemy or friend arises.

Furthermore, all activities such as coming and going, cutting and breaking, burning and destroying, exist merely as designations and not among real dharmas. Why is this? Because real dharmas cannot be burned or destroyed.

Furthermore, both wrongdoing and merit exist merely as designations. Why is this? Because killing sentient beings and the like constitute wrongdoing, while refraining from killing sentient beings and the like constitutes merit; neither truly exists.

Furthermore, things that exist merely as designations are established through mutual dependence, such as this and that, light and heavy, long and short, large and small, teacher and disciple, father and son, noble and lowly, and so forth. Real dharmas are not established through mutual dependence. Why is this?

Because form does not depend upon other things in order to become sound and the like. Furthermore, whatever is refuted without resorting to emptiness exists merely as a designation. For example, by refuting the trees one refutes the forest; by refuting the roots and trunk one refutes the tree; and by refuting form and the other dharmas one refutes the roots and trunk.

Whatever must be refuted by means of emptiness exists as a real dharma, as form and the other dharmas must be refuted by means of emptiness. Furthermore, whatever is an object of the contemplation of emptiness exists merely as a designation. Whatever is an object of the contemplation of non-self exists as a real dharma.

Furthermore, there are four modes of argument: first, identity; second, difference; third, inexpressibility; and fourth, nonexistence. All four modes of argument contain errors. Therefore, one should know that a jar and the like exist merely as designations.

Identity means that form, odor, flavor, and tangible qualities are themselves the jar. Difference means that apart from form and the other dharmas there is a distinct jar. Inexpressibility means that one cannot say either that form and the other dharmas are the jar or that apart from form and the other dharmas there is a distinct jar.

Nonexistence means that this jar does not exist. None of these four modes of argument accords with reason. Therefore, one should know that the jar is a mere designation.

CHAPTER 143: REFUTATION OF IDENTITY

Question: What errors are there in all four of these modes of argument?

Answer: The error of the identity argument is that the characteristics of form and the other dharmas are all different. If they were identical, no jar could be established. Furthermore, form and each of the other dharmas individually are not called earth. How, then, could their combination become earth? Why is this? Just as each individual horse is not called an ox, how could their combination become an ox?

Question: Just as each individual sesame seed cannot form a heap of sesame seeds, yet their combination can form a heap, might it likewise be that form and the other dharmas individually cannot constitute earth, yet their combination constitutes it?

Answer: It is not so. Why is this? Because a heap of sesame seeds exists merely as a designation, whereas the identity argument and the other arguments concern real dharmas. How could it serve as an analogy? Furthermore, form, odor, flavor, and tangible qualities are four dharmas, whereas earth is one. Could the one then also be four? This is impossible. Therefore, one should know that form and the other dharmas are not themselves earth. Furthermore, people in the world all speak of the form of earth, the odor of earth, the flavor of earth, and the tangible qualities of earth, but one never hears them speak of the “form of form.” One thing must be indicated by means of another dharma, as when one speaks of someone’s house, and so forth.

Question: This does not indicate one thing by means of another dharma, but uses the thing’s own dharma to indicate itself, as with the hands and feet of a stone person. Why is this? Because apart from the hands and feet, there is no stone person. Likewise, although earth does not exist apart from form and the other dharmas, its own substance may still indicate itself. What error is there in this?

Answer: If it is said that earth designates itself by means of form and the other qualities, this is unreasonable. Although you give the analogy of a stone man, that analogy is invalid. Why?

Just as when a monkey points to a stone man, the various other bodily parts must be present for it to constitute a stone man. Furthermore, one may also speak of something existing within empty space. When speaking of a body, as when speaking of the body of a stone man, at that time the stone man itself no longer exists, yet one may still speak of it.

As the Buddha said, within this body are hair of the head, body hair, blood, flesh, and so forth. Apart from this hair and the other parts, there is no body; and in that upon which this hair and the other parts depend, there is likewise no body, yet one may still speak of their support. Therefore, you should know that such an assertion is erroneous.

If you maintain that the stone man constitutes earth, it still cannot constitute earth. In your scripture it is said that whatever possesses form, odor, taste, and tangibility is earth. This earth is therefore not like a body.

Hence you should know that form, odor, taste, and tangibility are not earth. Moreover, among the various gunas, one cannot designate another; for one cannot say that this form possesses odor, but only that earth possesses form, odor, taste, and tangibility. Therefore, it cannot be known as one.

Furthermore, the cognition of form and the other qualities differs from the three other cognitions. Hence you should know that form and the other qualities are not earth. Moreover, form and the other qualities have different names, while earth has another name; therefore, earth should also be different.

Question: Although the cognitions and names are different, are these differences not all present within the composite?

Answer: If cognition and name exist only through combination, then combination itself is merely a designation. Thus, earth exists only as a designation, and there is no doctrine of unity. Moreover, earth should be cognized by all the sense faculties.

How is this known? Because someone may think: “I see earth, smell earth, taste earth, and touch earth.” If form, odor, taste, and tangibility were earth, then the conception of earth—namely, “I see earth”—should not arise only in relation to form. The same should apply to odor and the other qualities.

Yet in reality, it is only in relation to form that the conception of earth arises. Therefore, one should know that form and the other qualities are not earth. It is only by virtue of the conditions for conventional designation that one may apply a provisional name even to one part.

For example, when a person cuts down a tree, one may say that he cuts down the tree, and one may also say that he cuts down the forest. Moreover, the various gunas are held to be distinct from dravya. There are numerous reasons involved in this.

For these reasons, the doctrine of unity cannot be established. Furthermore, followers of the Samkhya school say that the five gunas are earth. This too is unreasonable.

Why? As stated previously, sound, apart from form and the other qualities, perishes from moment to moment and then arises again in succession; yet it is not a cause constituting the four great elements. Therefore, one should know that not all four great elements possess sound.

CHAPTER 144: REFUTATION OF DIFFERENCE

Question: What faults are found in the doctrine of difference?

Answer: Apart from such dharmas as form, there is no separate earth. How is this known? Because a cognition of earth does not arise apart from form, odor, taste, and tangibility; it arises only in relation to such dharmas as form. Why? Form is one thing and sound and the other qualities are different things; cognition of form arises without depending upon sound and the other qualities. If earth existed separately from form and the other qualities, cognition of earth should likewise arise without depending upon form and the other qualities. Yet in reality, it does not arise independently of them. Therefore, no separate earth exists.

Question: Is it not the case that cognition of form does not arise independently of other dharmas, but must depend upon the characteristic of form?

Answer: This will be discussed in the chapter refuting universal characteristics. Apart from form, no separate characteristic of form exists. Therefore, this is unreasonable. Furthermore, no faculty is capable of cognizing something distinct from such dharmas as earth. Hence one should know that no separate great elements or the like exist.

Question: Earth and the other elements can be apprehended by two faculties, the body faculty and the eye faculty. How is this known? By seeing with the eye, one knows that something is a jar; or by touching it with the body faculty, one also knows that it is a jar. Therefore, your statement that no faculty apprehends earth is unreasonable, is it not?

Answer: If that were so, then a jar would be apprehended by four faculties, for one could also smell the clay with the nose faculty and taste the clay with the tongue faculty.

Question: The nose faculty and tongue faculty cannot apprehend a jar. Why? Because in darkness they cannot distinguish whether one is smelling a jar or a basin, or tasting a jar or a basin.

Answer: Although they cannot distinguish whether it is a jar or a basin, cognition of clay nevertheless arises in relation to the clay: one knows that one is smelling clay or tasting clay. Moreover, if a basin is buried so that only its mouth is exposed, whether one sees it or touches it, one cannot determine whether it is a jar, a vessel, or a shard of pottery. Therefore, one should know that the eye faculty and body faculty likewise cannot apprehend a jar.

Furthermore, although in darkness cognition of a jar may arise, one cannot distinguish whether it is a gold jar or a silver jar. Hence one should know that the eye faculty and body faculty likewise cannot apprehend the jar itself. Moreover, the nose faculty and tongue faculty can apprehend such things as flowers, fruits, ghee, and milk, whereas the eye faculty and body faculty cannot apprehend them in this way.

For example, upon seeing flowers and the like, one cannot distinguish whether they are fragrant or foul-smelling, good or bad, nor whether they are sweet or sour, and so forth. Therefore, if one says that the eye faculty and body faculty cognize dravya, whereas the nose faculty and tongue faculty do not, this is unreasonable. Just as the nose faculty and tongue faculty cannot be distinct from dravya yet still make separate distinctions, so too the eye faculty and body faculty, though not distinct from dravya, can also make distinctions.

Furthermore, none of the five sense faculties possesses cognition of provisional designations. Hence one should know that provisional designations are not objects apprehended by the faculties of the eye, body, nose, or tongue; rather, cognition of provisional designations occurs through the sixth faculty. Why?

Because mental consciousness is capable of taking all dharmas as its objects. Moreover, if the eye can see form and also see what is not form, then it should also be able to see sound and the other qualities. If so, there would be no need for the ear and the other faculties.

But this is impossible. Therefore, dravya is not apprehended by the eye faculty or body faculty.

Question: Because dravya is revealed through form, the eye is able to see it; this does not mean that all dharmas distinct from form can be seen.

Answer: The claim that a jar is revealed through form is unreasonable. Why? What constitutes the form of a jar?

It is merely a combination. Therefore, form does not reveal the jar. Moreover, if visible dharmas reveal other dharmas and thereby make them visible, then because such things as jars, which are not visible, reveal form, form too should be invisible.

Furthermore, a jar would necessarily be both visible and invisible, because it is revealed by dharmas that are visible and those that are invisible. Moreover, if the faculties such as the eye can cognize things only because they are revealed through dharmas such as form, then the characteristic of form should not be cognized by the eye faculty. Why?

According to your doctrine, form becomes visible because of the characteristic of form. Yet this characteristic of form has no further characteristic. Thus, the characteristic of form should be invisible.

Therefore, this is unreasonable. Moreover, if something becomes visible because it is revealed through form, then all the faculties should cognize dravya. The ear faculty should also cognize empty space, because it is revealed through sound.

Likewise, one who touches wind with the body faculty should cognize wind because it is revealed through tangibility. Yet your doctrine does not hold this to be so. Therefore, no such dharma as “revelation” exists.

Question: Other dharmas are likewise incapable of revealing, but form alone is capable of revealing.

Answer: It is not so. Here, no cause or condition is given; it is merely said that visible form can reveal, whereas other dharmas cannot. As you say, among the great elements and dravyas, visible form can be seen.

If so, then visible form should be apprehended by reason of visible form; one must first discern visible form through its characteristic and only afterward can it be apprehended. Thus it is not only revealed visible form that can reveal. If you say this, you still do not avoid the previous fault.

Moreover, the thought that cognizes visible form arises at one time, while the thought that cognizes a jar arises at another. Therefore, even if visible form can reveal, what benefit does it afford with regard to the jar? Furthermore, because a blind person is familiar with a jar, though deprived of sight, he can recognize the jar by touching it.

Therefore, visible form alone is not the cause of seeing. Furthermore, through the faculty of the body, a blind person can also perceive wind. Thus, only after revealed visible forms arise can the mind cognize them.

Moreover, in your scripture it is also said that what touches and makes contact with the body is neither earth, water, nor fire. One should know that the characteristic of wind cannot be seen. This reasoning is also invalid.

Why? Because when a blind person perceives this wind, he likewise does not know whether this tangible object is visible or invisible. Furthermore, a sighted person perceives the numerical attributes of dharmas, yet there is no revealed visible form therein.

Upon hearing, one can also know that something is not an odor-dharma; upon tasting, one can also know that something is not a flavor-dharma. Therefore, the assertion that dravya can be known only after it is revealed by visible form is unreasonable.

Question: If revealed visible form is not the cause of seeing, then since the attributes of dharmas are immeasurable, should not invisible dravyas and wind also be visible?

Answer: According to my doctrine, apart from visible form there is no other dharma that can be seen. Therefore, whenever visible form, such as that of a jar, is present in some dharma, the eye can see it. Once the eye has seen the visible form, the conception of a jar arises. If no visible form arises in a dharma, then even though the eye is present, no conception distinct from that of the jar arises therein. Therefore, if it is claimed that apart from all visible forms there exists a separate jar, there is no such principle.

CHAPTER 145: REFUTATION OF THE INEXPRESSIBLE

Question: What faults are found in the doctrine of the Inexpressible?

Answer: No real dharma exists within those doctrines that claim identity and difference to be inexpressible. Why? Because no cause, condition, or analogy is given by which this inexpressibility may be known.

Since visible form and the other dharmas truly exist, they are not inexpressible. Moreover, each dharma has its own characteristic. Susceptibility to damage is the characteristic of visible form, and it has no other characteristic; why, then, call it inexpressible?

Furthermore, dharmas differ according to differences in cognition. For example, eye-consciousness cognizes visible form but does not cognize sound and the rest. Therefore, there is nothing inexpressible here.

Furthermore, visible form is included within the visible-form ayatana and is not included within sound or the other ayatanas. If you wish to maintain that there is something inexpressible, then is this visible form an expressible visible form, or is this visible form a non-form that is inexpressible? The same applies to sound and the rest.

Furthermore, dharmas possess numerical sequence. If they were inexpressible, dharmas would have no numerical order. Why?

Because the first and second would not differ. Therefore, one should know that no inexpressible dharma exists.

It is only with regard to nominal designations—whether they are identical or different—that they are said to be inexpressible, meaning merely that they cannot be stated.

CHAPTER 146: REFUTATION OF NONEXISTENCE

Question: What faults are found in the doctrine of nonexistence?

Answer: If nothing existed, there would be no karmic retribution for demerit and merit, no bondage or liberation, and none of the other dharmas. Moreover, if one holds that nothing whatsoever exists, then this very view also does not exist, because there would be neither speaker nor listener. Furthermore, propositions concerning existence, nonexistence, and the like are all stated on the basis of belief: one may believe through knowledge gained by direct perception, through knowledge gained by inference, or through knowledge gained from scriptures.

If you say that nothing whatsoever exists, your assertion belongs to none of these three modes. You may think that your assertion follows the scriptures. This is also unreasonable, because the meaning of the scriptures is difficult to understand: sometimes they speak of existence and sometimes of nonexistence, so how can they be accepted as authoritative?

If you rely upon inferential knowledge, there must first be direct perception, and only afterward can inference be made. Moreover, dharmas such as jars are now directly perceived to exist because they can produce cognition. Whenever something can produce a thought, that dharma exists; therefore, it is not nonexistent.

Furthermore, jars, basins, and the like now manifestly differ from one another. If everything were empty and nonexistent, how could there be any difference? You may think that such distinctions arise only from false recollection and conception.

Why, then, do you not distinguish jars and the like in the midst of empty space? Furthermore, if you say that cognition of such objects arises because of delusion, then, if everything is nonexistent, this delusion also does not exist; from what, then, could it arise? Moreover, if you hold that all dharmas are nonexistent, upon what condition could this cognition arise?

Cognitions surely cannot arise without conditions. It is because an object is cognized that it is called cognition. Therefore, one should know that nonexistence ought not to be asserted.

Furthermore, if all were nonexistent, everyone in the world would now act according to personal whim. Yet in truth, good people all delight in generosity, observance of precepts, patience, and other wholesome dharmas, and they keep far away from unwholesome dharmas. Therefore, one should know that all is not nonexistent.

Moreover, dharmas such as jars are now directly knowable, yet you say that none presently exist. If no dharmas existed, one should not believe the scriptures either. On what cause and condition, then, do you say that all is nonexistent?

This claim that all is nonexistent must be explained. If you cannot explain it by means of causes and conditions, then the position of your opponent must naturally be established. If the opponent’s doctrine is established, your own doctrine is destroyed.

But if there are causes and conditions by which your position can be established, it cannot be called complete nonexistence.

CHAPTER 147: ESTABLISHING NONEXISTENCE

The proponent of nonexistence says: Although you use verbal discourse to refute emptiness, all dharmas truly do not exist, because neither the sense faculties nor their objects can be apprehended. Why is this? Because within dharmas no whole can be apprehended.

Therefore, no dharma can be apprehended; and because they cannot be apprehended, they are nonexistent. If you say that although the whole cannot be apprehended, its various parts can be apprehended, this is not reasonable. Why?

Because no cognition arises with regard to the parts; it is coarse objects such as a jar that can be apprehended. Moreover, the parts do not constitute a whole. Why?

Because it is only on account of a whole that parts are spoken of; since the whole does not exist, neither do the parts. Furthermore, dravya and guna have no parts; therefore, there are no parts. Again, if subtle parts were seen, a cognition of parts should constantly arise, and no cognition of the jar would arise.

Why? If one constantly attended to the parts, a cognition of the jar should never arise, or it should arise only after a long time. But in fact, it does not take a long time to arise; therefore, one is not attending to the parts.

Again, when one sees a jar, no discriminating cognition of its parts arises; instead, a cognition of the jar immediately arises. Furthermore, no parts whatsoever exist. Why?

Because every part can be further divided and broken apart until it becomes atoms; and then, by analyzing the atoms according to their directions, they are reduced to complete nonexistence. Moreover, all dharmas ultimately and necessarily give rise to the knowledge of emptiness. Therefore, in the ultimate truth, all parts are nonexistent.

Again, one who asserts parts destroys the principle of the two truths. Why? Those who say that there is no whole but only parts thereby deny such activities as going, coming, seeing, and cutting.

Thus, conventional truth would not exist. You maintain that ultimate truth is empty, and in ultimate truth parts also do not exist. Therefore, know that by speaking only of parts, one enters neither of the two truths.

Because they enter neither of the two truths, parts do not exist. Furthermore, if a dharma can be transcended, it is nonexistent. Just as, through the parts, one transcends the whole, so too, through other parts, one again transcends the preceding parts.

Because they can be transcended, parts do not exist.

According to this argument, form and the other objects also do not exist. Why? The eye cannot see subtle form, and the mind cannot apprehend present form. Therefore, form cannot be apprehended. Moreover, eye-consciousness cannot discriminate this form, while mental consciousness belongs to the past and does not abide in present form. Therefore, there is no one capable of discriminating form. Because there is no discrimination, form cannot be apprehended. Again, if the first consciousness cannot discriminate form, the second consciousness and all subsequent consciousnesses are likewise unable to do so. Therefore, there is no one capable of discriminating form.

Question: After eye-consciousness apprehends form, mental consciousness subsequently recollects it. Therefore, it is not the case that form is undiscriminated, is it?

Answer: As soon as eye-consciousness has seen form, it ceases; only afterward does mental consciousness arise. This mental consciousness does not see form. If it does not see it, how can it recollect it? If one could recollect without having seen, then a blind person should also be able to recollect it. But in fact, a blind person recollects nothing of the kind. Therefore, mental consciousness cannot recollect it.

Question: Mental consciousness arises from eye-consciousness; therefore, it can recollect, can it not?

Answer: No. Why? Because all subsequent mental states arise dependent upon eye-consciousness.

If so, they should all be able to recollect. Moreover, since they arise from it, one should certainly never forget. Yet in fact this is not so.

Therefore, know that mental consciousness also cannot recollect. Just as recollection is false and deceptive, so too the apprehension of jars, forms, and all other objects is entirely false and deceptive: one wrongly apprehends what does not exist. Therefore, no object whatsoever exists.

Again, if it is said that the eye sees, does it see by reaching the object or without reaching it? If it reaches the object, it cannot see, because the eye has no characteristic of movement. This has already been explained.

If it sees without reaching the object, it should see forms in every place. But in fact, it does not. Therefore, know that it cannot see without reaching the object.

Question: When form lies within the field of cognition, the eye can see it, can it not?

Answer: What is meant by “the field of cognition”?

Question: Whatever the eye is able to see is called the field of cognition.

Answer: Whatever the eye is able to see is called the field of cognition?

Answer: If even what the eye does not reach is called the field of cognition, then forms in every place should all belong to the field of cognition. Therefore, whether it reaches them or does not reach them, in either case it cannot see. Hence, know that form cannot be seen.

Moreover, if the eye and form exist first and eye-consciousness arises afterward, then this eye-consciousness has no basis or object-condition. If they arise simultaneously, then the eye and form cannot be called the causes and conditions that produce consciousness, because things arising simultaneously cannot serve as causes for one another. Again, the eye is composed of the four great elements.

If the eye can see, then bricks and other such things should also be able to see, because they too are composed of the four great elements. The same applies to form. Furthermore, this eye-consciousness must either have a location or have no location, and both alternatives are faulty.

Why? If eye-consciousness depends upon the eye, then it has a location; if something has no location, it cannot depend upon anything. If you say that consciousness arises in one location, in a small part of the eye, or arises throughout it, or arises simultaneously in both eyes, then consciousness has a location.

But if it has a location, it has parts. In that case, a single consciousness would be constituted from many consciousnesses. This entails such faults as these, as well as the fault that many consciousnesses would arise simultaneously.

Moreover, each individual part of consciousness would be unable to know that whole, although it ought to know it. Yet in fact, no such whole exists. This entails such faults.

If consciousness has no location, then it should not depend upon the eye.

CHAPTER 148: REFUTATION OF SOUND

The proponent of nonexistence says: Not even a single word exists. Why? Because the mind ceases from moment to moment, and sound also ceases from moment to moment.

For example, when one says “Pu-lou-sha,” this word cannot be heard. Why? When the consciousness hears “Pu,” it does not hear “lou”; when it hears “lou,” it does not hear “sha.” No single consciousness can apprehend all three syllables.

Therefore, no consciousness can apprehend a single word. Hence, know that sound cannot be heard. Moreover, the distracted mind hears sound, whereas the concentrated mind cannot hear it; yet what is known by the concentrated mind is real.

Therefore, sound cannot be heard. Again, whether this sound reaches the ear or does not reach it, in either case it cannot be heard. Because it cannot be heard, sound does not exist.

Furthermore, some say that the ear is of the nature of empty space, for that which is devoid of any entity is called empty space. Therefore, there is no ear. Since there is no ear, there is no sound. Moreover, the causes and conditions of sound are nonexistent. Therefore, sound does not exist. The causes and conditions of sound are the dharmas consisting of the conjunction of the great elements, but conjunction cannot be apprehended. Why? If their essences are different dharmas, there can be no conjunction. If their essences are not different, why would they not be conjoined with themselves? Even if they occupy one place, they cease from moment to moment. Therefore, conjunction cannot be established.

CHAPTER 149: REFUTATION OF ODOR, TASTE, AND TANGIBLE OBJECTS

Odor cannot be apprehended. Why? Because nose-consciousness cannot discriminate whether an odor is the odor of campaka or some other kind of odor. Mental consciousness cannot smell odor; therefore, mental consciousness also cannot discriminate that it is the odor of campaka.

Question: Although it cannot discriminate that it is the odor of campaka, can it not still apprehend odor?

Answer: No. Just as a person who has not apprehended a campaka tree, through delusion, gives rise to the thought of a campaka tree, so too, without apprehending the essence of odor, through delusion, one gives rise to a cognition of odor. Moreover, as previously explained, whether odor reaches the nose or does not reach it, both alternatives are faulty. Therefore, odor does not exist. The same applies to taste. Tangible objects also do not exist. Why? Because even among atoms and their parts no cognition of touch arises, as previously explained. Therefore, tangible objects do not exist.

CHAPTER 150: REFUTATION OF MENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Mental consciousness also cannot apprehend dharmas. Why? As previously explained, mental consciousness cannot apprehend present form, odor, taste, and tangible objects, while the past and future do not exist. Therefore, mental consciousness does not apprehend form and the other objects.

Question: If mental consciousness does not know dharmas such as form, it should at least know its own essence.

Answer: A dharma does not know itself. Why? A present dharma cannot know itself, just as a knife cannot cut itself; and because dharmas of the past and future do not exist, neither is there any other mind that can know it. Therefore, mental consciousness does not know itself.

Question: When a person knows another’s mind, is it the mental consciousness that can know that mental dharma?

Answer: Just as a person’s mind does not know itself, yet one may also give rise to this thought: “I have a mind”; so too is it with another person’s mind. Furthermore, even if future dharmas do not exist, knowledge of another’s mind can still arise. If so, what fault is there? Moreover, if mental consciousness could take dharmas as its objects, there would be many faults: for example, the mind would have to reach its objects, and the mind ought not to recollect form and the like. Because of these faults, mental consciousness does not know dharmas.

CHAPTER 151: REFUTATION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

The proponent of nonexistence says: If an effect exists, must the guna that produces it already exist in the cause, or does it arise although the guna did not previously exist? Both alternatives are faulty. Just as no sound previously exists between two hands, yet they can produce sound; no wine previously exists in the causes of wine, yet they can produce wine; and no cart previously exists in the causes of a cart, yet they can form a cart.

Therefore, it is not the case that a guna already exists in the cause and then produces the effect. If you say that an effect arises although the guna did not previously exist in the cause, then, since atoms do not possess the form of wind, should they produce such form? If so, wind would possess form, and adamantine substances and the like should also possess fragrance.

Moreover, it is presently observed that white threads alone make white cloth and black threads make black cloth. If an effect arises although the guna did not previously exist in the cause, why do white threads still make white cloth rather than black cloth? Thus, neither is it the case that an effect arises although the guna did not previously exist in the cause.

Both alternatives appear reasonable, yet both are faulty. Therefore, no effect exists. Furthermore, if the effect exists in the cause, it need not arise again; since it already exists, why produce it once more?

If it does not exist, it likewise cannot arise, for how could something arise from nonexistence?

Question: We presently see a jar being made. How can you say that no effect exists?

Answer: As for this jar, if it had not previously been made, how could it be made? For it is said not to exist. If it had already been made, why make it again? For it is said already to exist.

Question: Is the very time when it is being made called “making”?

Answer: There is no time that can be called the time of making. Why? Because the portion that has been made has already fallen within what is made; therefore, there is no time of making.

Furthermore, if a jar is made, should it be made in the past, the future, or the present? It is not made in the past, because the past has already ceased. It is not made in the future, because the future does not yet exist.

It is not made in the present, because what is present already exists. Furthermore, only through an agent is an action accomplished. Yet here the agent truly cannot be apprehended.

Why? Because the parts of the body, such as the head, have no involvement in that action; therefore, there is no agent. Since there is no agent, there is also no act.

Moreover, whether the cause is prior to, subsequent to, or simultaneous with the effect, none is reasonable. Why? If the cause is prior and the effect subsequent, the cause has already entirely ceased; how could the effect arise?

Just as, without a father, how could a child be born? If the cause is subsequent and the effect prior, the cause itself has not yet arisen; how could it produce the effect? It would be like a child being born before its father was born.

If cause and effect are simultaneous, that too is unreasonable. Just as two horns grow simultaneously and cannot be designated as a left horn and a right horn in relation to precedence. The possible relations of cause are exhausted by these three, yet none is reasonable.

Therefore, there is no effect.

Furthermore, cause and effect must be either identical or different, and both alternatives are faulty. Why? If they are different, cloth should exist apart from threads; if they are identical, threads and cloth would be without distinction.

Moreover, people in the world do not see any cause and effect that are without distinction. Furthermore, if an effect exists, it must be made by itself, made by another, made jointly, or made without a cause. All are unreasonable.

Why? No dharma can make its own substance. If its own substance already exists, why need it make itself?

If its own substance does not exist, how could it make itself? Moreover, no dharma is seen to be capable of making its own substance; therefore, it is not self-made. That it is made by another is also unreasonable.

Why? Because the eye and form have no involvement in the production of consciousness; therefore, another cannot make it. Moreover, because there is no thought or intention to make, all dharmas are without a maker.

A seed does not give rise to the thought, “I should produce a sprout.” Nor do the eye and form give rise to the thought, “We should unite and produce consciousness.” Thus, joint production is unreasonable because it entails the faults of both self and other. Production without a cause is also unreasonable, for if there is no cause, the designation “effect” likewise cannot exist. Since none of the four alternatives stated above can produce anything, how could an effect exist?

If it exists, you should explain it. Furthermore, was this effect made after an intention to make it had first arisen, or was it made without any prior intention? If an intention to make it arose first, then who had the intention to make the bodily parts, such as the eyes, of an infant in the womb?

Ishvara and the like likewise cannot have made them. As explained previously in the chapter on karma, karma has no intention concerning what it makes. Since this karma belongs to the past, how could it have an intention?

Therefore, karma also has no intention. If something is made without prior intention, how is it that an act causing suffering makes another undergo suffering, while an act bringing happiness causes another to attain happiness? Moreover, in the performance of actions at present, one also discriminates with the mind: “This should be done in this way; that should not be done in that way.” If there were no intention involved in making, how could these distinctions exist?

Therefore, both prior intention and the absence of prior intention are unreasonable. In such ways, all faculties and their objects cannot be apprehended. Therefore, dharmas do not exist.

CHAPTER 152: CONVENTIONAL TRUTH

Answer: Although you employ various causes and conditions to argue that all dharmas are nonexistent, this position is unreasonable. Why? I have already said that if everything is nonexistent, this treatise would likewise not exist, nor would it be included among any dharmas.

You have never answered all such refutations of nonexistence, yet you persist in deliberately establishing nonexistence. Therefore, it is not the case that all dharmas are nonexistent. Furthermore, you have said that faculties, objects, and the like do not exist.

This matter does not fall within the scope of our treatise’s elucidation. Why? In the sutras, the Buddha himself prohibited such speculation, declaring five matters to be inconceivable: the affairs of the world; the affairs of sentient beings; the causes and conditions of karma; the affairs of meditators; and the affairs of the Buddhas.

These matters cannot be contemplated, measured, and definitively judged by all wise people; only the Buddhas, who possess knowledge of all dharmas, can distinguish them. Shravakas and pratyekabuddhas possess only the wisdom that penetrates nirvana, while their discriminating knowledge of dharmas comprises but a small portion. The Buddhas can thoroughly penetrate all dharmas in all their varieties—their origin and conclusion, substance and nature, general characteristics, and particular characteristics.

Just as people, houses, and other things are easy to destroy but difficult to construct, so too is the knowledge of emptiness easy to attain, while the correct wisdom that distinguishes dharmas is difficult to produce.

Question: When the Buddha sat at the place of enlightenment, he realized the characteristics of all dharmas. Should one not speak precisely in accordance with what the Buddha taught?

Answer: Although the Buddha taught all dharmas, he did not explain every one of their varieties, for otherwise liberation could not be attained. For example, the Buddha said that dharmas arise from causes and conditions, but he did not state each and every cause and condition from which each one arises. He taught only what was essential and capable of ending suffering.

The various colors used in painting; the various sounds of music; and the limitless distinctions among fragrances, flavors, and tangible objects cannot all be exhaustively described. Even if they were described, it would bring no great benefit. Therefore, the Buddha did not speak of such matters, but one cannot consequently say they do not exist.

It is also like a person who does not know how to distinguish the various techniques and categories of painting and therefore says they do not exist. You are the same: because you cannot establish the matter, you then say that the matter does not exist. Yet it exists for the wise, although it does not exist for the ignorant.

It is like a person blind from birth who says, “Black and white do not exist, because I do not see them.” One should not say that such colors do not exist merely because one does not see them. Therefore, merely because one cannot establish them through causes and conditions, one should not say that all dharmas are nonexistent. Furthermore, the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, are the Knowers of the World in whom we place our trust.

The Buddha taught that the five skandhas exist; therefore, one should know that form and all other dharmas exist. Things such as jars likewise exist by virtue of conventional truth.

End of Volume 11 of the Satyasiddhi Shastra