成實論

CHAPTER 166: THE SECOND DHYANA

With the cessation of applied thought and sustained thought, inwardly purified and one-pointed, without applied thought or sustained thought, one enters the second dhyana, with joy and happiness born of concentration.

Question: If the second dhyana is said to extinguish applied thought and sustained thought, then we know that the first dhyana must certainly possess applied thought and sustained thought, just as the second dhyana possesses joy and the third dhyana will be said to extinguish joy?

Answer: Just as the faculty of suffering is absent from the first dhyana, yet the faculty of suffering is also said to be extinguished in the second dhyana, so it is here as well.

Question: Although the faculty of suffering is absent from the first dhyana, the various consciousnesses are present. These consciousnesses are the support of the faculty of suffering. Therefore, is it said that the faculty of suffering has not been extinguished in the first dhyana?

Answer: Although the various consciousnesses are present in the first dhyana, they are not the support of the faculty of suffering.

Question: By nature, the five consciousnesses are the support of the faculty of suffering. Because their nature is the same, is the first dhyana said to contain suffering?

Answer: If that were so, since the faculty of grief arises from the nature of mental consciousness, it should be said to exist everywhere.

Question: Why, then, is the faculty of suffering said to be extinguished in the second dhyana?

Answer: The first dhyana is close to an unconcentrated mind. In one whose mind is unconcentrated, the consciousnesses bound to the Desire Realm can arise, and within them the faculty of suffering arises. Therefore, the first dhyana is not said to extinguish suffering.

Question: If so, the first dhyana is also close to the faculty of grief. Should this faculty of grief also be described as extinguished in the second and third dhyanas?

Answer: The faculty of grief depends upon desire. Joy arises through dependence upon desire. When pure joy is attained, impure joy ceases.

Therefore, the faculty of grief is absent from the first dhyana. The faculty of suffering arises in dependence upon lack of concentration. Because the first dhyana is close to a distracted mind, it is spoken of as being extinguished.

Moreover, although suffering is absent from the third dhyana, it is still said that only after suffering and happiness have been abandoned does one enter the fourth dhyana. This matter is the same. Furthermore, in the first dhyana the practitioner’s concentration is not yet complete and is constantly disturbed by applied thought and sustained thought.

Therefore, the second dhyana is said to extinguish applied thought and sustained thought.

“Inwardly purified” means that the second dhyana gathers the mind profoundly, so distraction cannot enter. Because no distracted mind exists within, it is called inward purity. The essence of the second dhyana is one-pointedness.

One-pointedness without applied thought or sustained thought is the mind proceeding along a single path; it is also called dhyana and is precisely inward purity. Because this profound concentration is attained, applied thought and sustained thought do not arise; it is unlike the first dhyana, where the mental factors abide in applied thought and sustained thought. The words “without applied thought or sustained thought, with joy and happiness born of concentration” mean that in the first dhyana joy is attained through separation, whereas here joy is attained because concentration has been perfected.

Therefore, it is called born of concentration.

Question: What difference is there between the joy of the first dhyana and the joy of the second dhyana?

Answer: In the first dhyana, joy is attained through the cessation of grief; in the second dhyana, joy arises through the cessation of suffering. Moreover, the joy of the first dhyana is attained in opposition to impure joy, whereas the joy of the second dhyana is attained in opposition to pure joy. Although both kinds of joy are attained through the causes and conditions of craving, the joy of the first dhyana is weak.

Question: Is this meaning with outflows or without outflows?

Answer: It is with outflows, because where there is the thought of self, there is rejoicing.

Question: It is unreasonable to say that there is no rejoicing without outflows. Among the seven factors of awakening, the Buddha taught the awakening factor of joy. The factors of awakening are exclusively without outflows. Therefore, one should know that there is rejoicing without outflows. Moreover, a sutra says: “When one’s mind rejoices, one’s body becomes tranquil.” When the body is tranquil, one experiences happiness. If there were no rejoicing without outflows, there should likewise be no tranquility or happiness without outflows. Furthermore, when the Buddha saw the Sangha deeply cultivating wholesome Dharma, he gave rise to gladness. Therefore, one should clearly know that there is rejoicing without outflows.

Answer: You cite the seven factors of awakening as proof of happiness and rejoicing without outflows, but this is unreasonable. The factors of awakening are of two kinds: with outflows and without outflows. As a sutra says: “When a practitioner hears the Dharma, one can eliminate the five hindrances and cultivate the seven factors of awakening.” Awakening refers to the knowledge of one beyond training.

Just as awakening through the cultivation of impurity and other such dharmas is all called a factor of awakening, so it is here. Your assertion that tranquility without outflows should therefore not exist is also incorrect. Rejoicing first arises, and only afterward does one attain that which is without outflows, namely knowledge and vision in accordance with reality.

Moreover, not all tranquility arises from rejoicing; for above the third dhyana there is neither rejoicing nor tranquility. Furthermore, we do not say that, apart from knowledge, there exists a separate dharma of feeling. When this knowledge without outflows first reaches the mind, it is called happiness.

Therefore, happiness without outflows exists, but it does not arise from rejoicing. Moreover, a sutra says: “The removal of bodily and mental heaviness is called tranquility.” When the state without outflows is attained, body and mind become harmonious and well-regulated; therefore, tranquility without outflows exists. Furthermore, the Buddha constantly abides with a mind of equanimity.

Thus, the assertion that the Buddha rejoiced requires clarification. Moreover, one who is free from self and what belongs to self does not rejoice. If an arhat rejoiced, the arhat should also grieve; but in truth an arhat does not grieve.

Therefore, one should know that an arhat does not rejoice.

Question: Just as the first and second dhyanas contain rejoicing but no grief, an arhat may likewise have rejoicing but no grief. What fault would there be in this?

Answer: Grief exists within the various dhyana concentrations, as stated in a verse: “Grief and rejoicing extend as far as the summit of existence; suffering and happiness follow the body as far as the fourth dhyana.” Moreover, in the teaching on entering the third dhyana, it is said: “Separated from rejoicing, one cultivates equanimity.” Therefore, one should know that no rejoicing without outflows exists. If it existed, why would separation from it be taught? A mind without outflows should not contain rejoicing, because all rejoicing depends upon conceptual designation, perception, and discrimination.

Question: If so, do the first and second dhyanas contain no feeling without outflows? A sutra says: “In the first and second dhyanas there is only rejoicing; the mind has not yet attained happiness.” From where, then, could this rejoicing arise?

Answer: This rejoicing and this separation from rejoicing are not spoken with reference to dhyana without outflows. Yet another sutra does speak of dhyana without outflows. It says that, whatever characteristic and condition a practitioner relied upon to enter the first dhyana, after entering it the practitioner no longer attends to that characteristic or condition, but contemplates only how much form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are present within the first dhyana, regarding them as illness, as an abscess, and so forth, through to non-self.

Question: “As illness, as an abscess, as a painful arrow”—these four contemplations are mundane practices, not practices without outflows. Therefore, your citation of that sutra as evidence cannot establish the existence of that which is without outflows.

Answer: These four practices are all different names for suffering and therefore are called without outflows.

Question: Do those in training also have no rejoicing without outflows?

Answer: When the mind abides in the Path, there is no rejoicing; when it abides in the conventional, there is. Those beyond training never have it.

Question: A sutra says that through a joyful and rejoicing mind one can attain the Four Truths. Why, then, do you say that there is no rejoicing without outflows?

Answer: The mind of non-self is itself happiness. When the practitioner’s mind realizes non-self, delusion is destroyed; because the practitioner knows reality, happiness and ease are attained, but there is no separate rejoicing. Moreover, this sutra makes clear that true knowledge cannot be attained by means of rejoicing; it is for this reason that it speaks in this way.

End of the fifteenth fascicle of the Treatise on the Establishment of Truth.

CHAPTER 167: THE THIRD DHYANA

Separated from rejoicing, one cultivates equanimity, mindfulness, and discerning wisdom, and experiences happiness with the body. Of this happiness the noble ones say: “One abides in equanimity and mindfulness, dwelling happily.” Thus one enters the third dhyana.

Question: Why does one separate from rejoicing?

Answer: The practitioner sees its agitating and buoyant nature and separates from it. Moreover, rejoicing arises from conceptual discrimination. Its agitated and shifting characteristic has always been continually accompanied by suffering.

For this reason, one separates from it. Furthermore, because the practitioner attains the quiescence of the third dhyana, the second dhyana is relinquished. Again, the happiness born of rejoicing is shallow, while the happiness born from separation from rejoicing is deep.

Just as a person cannot constantly rejoice over spouse, children, and the like, because rejoicing arises from conceptual discrimination, whereas happiness does not arise from conceptual discrimination and therefore can endure. The practitioner is likewise: when rejoicing first arrives, it is regarded as happiness, but afterward one becomes disenchanted and separates from it.

Question: When a person is oppressed by heat, that person regards coolness as happiness. By what suffering is the practitioner oppressed, such that the third dhyana is regarded as happiness?

Answer: The rejoicing of the second dhyana has the characteristic of agitation and is like a thorn. Because the practitioner is oppressed by this suffering, happiness arises within concentration devoid of rejoicing.

Question: So long as there is the suffering of heat, coolness is regarded as happiness; but once one is separated from heat, coolness is no longer happiness. If the practitioner has separated from rejoicing, why does happiness still arise in the third dhyana?

Answer: The arising of happiness is of two kinds: it may arise because suffering still remains, as when there is suffering from heat and coolness is taken to be happiness; or it may arise from separation from suffering, as when one is separated from a hated enemy. Thus, after the Buddha had departed from the quarrelsome monks of Kosambi, he said, “I dwell happily.” This case is not like that. Because one has become free from the characteristic of agitation, happiness arises in the third dhyana, just as, upon abandoning the five sensual desires, one takes the first dhyana to be happiness.

Cultivating equanimity: Because joy has been abandoned, the mind attains tranquility. Previously, the practitioner was deeply attached to joy, and the mind was greatly distracted. Now, having become free from it, the mind attains tranquility.

Therefore, this is called cultivating equanimity. Mindfulness and clear wisdom: With regard to the faults inherent in joy, these two qualities remain constantly prepared and do not allow joy to come and disturb the mind. Furthermore, mindfulness means being mindful of joy, while clear wisdom sees the faults inherent in joy.

Experiencing happiness with the body: This means abandoning joy and cultivating equanimity. Equanimity itself is happiness, because there is no restless seeking. Since this happiness does not arise from conceptual discrimination, it is called experiencing happiness with the body.

The noble ones also speak of equanimity: “Speak of” means that, in accordance with worldly usage, it is called happiness. It is like saying that because the mind in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is unattached, it is equanimous. Mindfully cultivating happiness: This person understands equanimity—that is, by seeing the faults of joy, one becomes disenchanted and detached, and therefore attains subtle equanimity.

Mindfulness is also subtle, meaning that it is able to remember the faults of joy. Clear wisdom should also be mentioned here, but because it functions together with mindfulness, it is not stated separately. Happiness: This is the foremost happiness.

Therefore, the noble ones also speak of equanimity.

Question: In dhyana there is pleasant feeling. Why, then, is the happiness of equanimity spoken of?

Answer: In this treatise, I do not say that apart from feeling there is a separate happiness of equanimity. Pleasant feeling itself is the happiness of equanimity.

Question: If so, the fourth dhyana should also be said to contain pleasant feeling, since equanimity is present there.

Answer: I say that the fourth dhyana also contains pleasant feeling. It is described in that way only because the happiness of the third dhyana has ceased.

Question: If all of these are pleasant feeling, why are the first and second dhyanas called joy, while the third dhyana is called happiness?

Answer: Because it involves conceptual discrimination, it is called joy; because it is free from conceptual discrimination, it is called happiness. Since the practitioner’s mind is more collected in the third dhyana and is free from conceptual discrimination, it is called happiness. Furthermore, because the tranquility attained in the third dhyana is more profound, it is called happiness. As it is said, the noble ones call a mind that moves and seeks suffering. Movement is discrimination; freedom from this is called happiness. Thus it is.

CHAPTER 168: THE FOURTH DHYANA

Having abandoned suffering and happiness, and having previously extinguished sorrow and joy, one enters the fourth dhyana, which is neither painful nor pleasant and is purified by equanimity and mindfulness.

Question: If suffering was abandoned previously, why is it mentioned only here? If it must be mentioned, it should be said to have been abandoned previously, just as sorrow and joy are said to have been extinguished previously.

Answer: The fourth dhyana is called immovable. To establish this characteristic of immovability, it is said here that the four kinds of feeling are absent. Why is this? Movement means being stirred. When the practitioner is assailed by suffering and happiness, the mind is stirred. When the mind is stirred, greed and anger arise. Therefore, suffering and happiness must be abandoned so that the mind will not be stirred.

Question: If the feeling in the fourth dhyana confers such great benefit, why is it not called happiness?

Answer: Because this feeling is tranquil, it is said to be neither painful nor pleasant. When one knows it in accordance with the mind’s awareness, it is happiness. Upon attaining the fourth dhyana, one becomes free from the happiness of the third dhyana. Thus, by not regarding it as happiness, it is called happiness. Purified by equanimity and mindfulness: Here equanimity is pure because there is no seeking. In the third dhyana there is seeking, meaning that one regards it as happiness. Moreover, mindfulness is also pure in this dhyana. Why is this? In the third dhyana, because one is attached to happiness, mindfulness becomes distracted. Upon reaching the fourth dhyana, because attachment to happiness has been abandoned, mindfulness is pure.

Question: Why does the fourth dhyana not mention clear wisdom?

Answer: If mindfulness is pure, one should understand that clear wisdom has already been stated, because these two qualities are never separated. Furthermore, this is the path of meditative concentration, not the path of wisdom. Since clear wisdom is wisdom, it is not mentioned.

In the latter part of the description of the third dhyana, clear wisdom is likewise not mentioned; it speaks only of dwelling happily, equanimously, and mindfully, and does not say dwelling happily with equanimity, mindfulness, and wisdom. Moreover, this mindfulness is able to bring meditative concentration to completion. When a person’s concentration is not yet accomplished, it must be brought to completion through perception and mindfulness; for this reason, mindfulness is stated separately.

Furthermore, upon attaining a higher virtue and relinquishing a lower virtue, no deliberation is required; therefore, wisdom is not mentioned.

Question: Feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant belongs to the factor of ignorance. In the fourth dhyana, it is largely opposed to wisdom; is this why wisdom is not mentioned?

Answer: If that were so, would feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant not be undefiled?

Question: In the third dhyana, clear wisdom is mentioned because it opposes faults belonging to its own plane, while mindfulness is mentioned because it opposes those belonging to other planes. Since the fourth dhyana has no such faults belonging to its own plane, is that why clear wisdom is not mentioned?

Answer: The fourth dhyana also has faults such as greed, so clear wisdom should be mentioned. The fault of greed therein is subtle and difficult to discern, so it is especially necessary to mention it. It should likewise be mentioned in the other planes, yet it is not. If one understands this, one should answer as I have.

Question: Why does breathing cease in the fourth dhyana?

Answer: Breath depends upon body and mind. How is this known? When the mind becomes subtle, the breath likewise becomes subtle.

Since the mind in the fourth dhyana is unmoving, inhalation and exhalation cease. It is also like a weary person, or one carrying a heavy burden up a mountain, whose breathing is forceful, but whose breathing becomes subtle while resting. The fourth dhyana is the same: because there is no characteristic of movement and the mind rests, inhalation and exhalation cease.

Some say that when the practitioner attains the fourth dhyana, the pores of the body composed of the four great elements become sealed, and therefore breathing ceases. This is not reasonable. Why is this?

After eating and drinking, sweat flows throughout the entire body. If the pores were sealed, it could not flow. Yet in fact this is not so.

One should therefore understand that the power of the mind in the fourth dhyana is able to cause breathing to cease.

Question: In the fourth dhyana there is no pleasant feeling. How, then, can the underlying tendency to craving be present there? For the sutras say that pleasant feeling contains the underlying tendency to craving.

Answer: A subtle pleasant feeling is present there; only coarse pleasant feeling has been abandoned. Therefore, it is said to be neither painful nor pleasant. It is like wind stirring a lamp: if the lamp is placed in a sealed room, it is not said to be stirred, though some slight wind must certainly be present there. Because the wind is not strong, the lamp is not said to be stirred. The fourth dhyana is likewise. Some slight happiness must certainly be present, but because coarse and violent suffering and happiness have been abandoned, it is called neither painful nor pleasant.

CHAPTER 169: THE SPHERE OF INFINITE SPACE

Having completely transcended all perceptions of form, extinguished perceptions of resistance, and ceased attending to all perceptions of diversity, one enters the sphere of infinite space. Perceptions of form are perceptions of visible form, smell, taste, and touch. Why must the practitioner transcend them?

Because within form there are opposition and obstruction, while perceptions of diversity include the sounds of bells, drums, and so forth. These perceptions are causes of many kinds of afflictions, many kinds of karma, and many kinds of suffering. For these reasons, they must be transcended.

When all perceptions of form are transcended, perceptions of resistance are extinguished. When perceptions of resistance are extinguished, there are no perceptions of diversity. This passage is abbreviated, and therefore it does not say that by transcending this, that is extinguished.

Some also say: “All perceptions of form are the perceptions that serve as the basis of eye-consciousness. Perceptions of resistance are the perceptions that serve as the basis of ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness. Perceptions of diversity are the perceptions that serve as the basis of mind-consciousness.” This is not reasonable.

Why is this? If one says that perceptions of resistance are extinguished, form has already been included; why would it need to be stated separately? Furthermore, apart from perceptions of form and perceptions of resistance, there is no separate form that serves as a basis for mind-consciousness.

Therefore, it need not be stated separately. Perceptions of diversity should be explained as above.

Entering the sphere of infinite space: Because the practitioner is oppressed, disturbed, and wearied by perceptions of form, one contemplates boundless emptiness. Internally, one takes as objects the empty spaces of the eyes, nose, throat, and so forth; externally, one takes as objects the empty spaces of wells, pits, doorways, hollows in trees, and so forth. One also contemplates the body after death, abandoned in a charnel ground and entirely consumed by fire; or fought over and devoured by birds and beasts, while maggots and insects swarm and crawl out from within it. Thus one should understand that this body, which formerly existed, has become empty.

Question: What does this concentration on space take as its object?

Answer: First, one takes emptiness of space as the object. Once this is accomplished, one takes one’s own skandhas as objects, and also the skandhas of others. Why is this? Because, taking compassion as foremost, one gives rise to this thought: “Sentient beings are pitiable, for they are tormented by form and the like.”

Question: Which sentient beings does this concentration take as its objects?

Answer: It takes all sentient beings as its objects.

Question: Since this practitioner has already transcended the characteristic of form, how can he take sentient beings in the Desire Realm as objects?

Answer: This practitioner still takes form as an object. Yet his mind is neither in harmony with form, nor delighted in it, nor attached to it. As the sutra says: “If a noble one deeply reflects upon and recollects the five sensual desires, he is neither delighted in them, nor in harmony with them, nor attached to them, for he fears falling back, as though his sinews and hair were burning.

But if he reflects upon nirvana, his mind becomes harmonious.” This person is likewise able to take form as an object, yet does not crave or delight in it. Furthermore, just as a practitioner, having progressively transcended the characteristic of form, can, by means of boundless space, take the fourth dhyana as an object, so the formless concentrations can take undefiled form as an object. There is no fault in this, because it is not a locus of discrimination; thus it should be understood in the same way here.

Question: Space belongs to the nature of the form-ayatana. How, then, can taking it as an object enable one to transcend the characteristic of form?

Answer: This concentration takes unconditioned space as its object and therefore can transcend form.

Question: This concentration does not take unconditioned space as its object. Why? Because in the preparatory practices for this concentration it is said that one takes as one’s object the space within the eye and so forth. Hence it should be known that conditioned space is taken as the object. Moreover, the sutras do not describe the characteristic of unconditioned space; they describe only the characteristic of conditioned space, namely that the formless domain is space. Therefore, unconditioned space does not exist.

Answer: The nature of form is not called space. Why? The sutra says: “Space is without form, cannot be seen, and offers no resistance.”

Question: Another sutra says: “Through light, space is known.” Apart from form, there is no dharma that can be known through light.

Answer: The absence of form is called space. Since forms can be known through light, by means of light one also knows that form is absent; this does not mean that space is an existent entity. Moreover, space can also be known in darkness; a blind person can know space by using his hand. One can also use a staff to know that what lies below is empty space. Therefore, it should be known that space is not of the nature of form. Form cannot be known by these causes and conditions. Furthermore, form offers resistance, whereas space offers none. Fire and the like can completely destroy form, but cannot destroy space. If space were destroyed, what dharma would it then be called?

Question: When form arises, space is destroyed. For example, when a city is built and walls are erected within it, there is then no longer any space there.

Answer: Form arises there, but this space is ultimately not destroyed. Why? Because the absence of form is called space. How could a dharma that is “nonexistent” become nonexistent again? Therefore, form does not destroy space. Furthermore, you say that space is form, but there is no reason that could establish space as form.

Question: Space is visibly perceived within doorways, hollows in trees, and so forth. What is visibly perceived requires no reasoning.

Answer: Space cannot be visibly perceived. This has already been refuted above, as in the statement that it can also be known in darkness, and so forth.

Question: If space is not form, then what dharma is it?

Answer: Space is called a nonexistent dharma. Places where there is no form are called space.

Question: The sutra says: “Because of six elements, sentient beings receive a body.” It also says: “Space is called invisible, formless, and nonresistant.” If space were a nonexistent dharma, such statements could not be made. No one says that a hare’s horn is invisible, formless, and nonresistant.

Answer: If something is a truly existent dharma, it invariably has a support, just as name depends upon form, while form in turn depends upon name. Space has no support; therefore, it should be known to be a nonexistent dharma. Your statement that space is one of the six elements is also incorrect.

Why? Because form obstructs form: when one form is acquired, another is lost, and thus there is increase. It is in this sense that the Buddha said that, because of the six elements, sentient beings receive a body.

You also say that space is formless, without shape, and nonresistant. Such statements are made to refute the notion that it is a material object; they do not assert that space has an intrinsic characteristic. You say that no one describes a hare’s horn as invisible, formless, and nonresistant.

This too is incorrect. Why? Because it is through space that such activities as going and coming can occur.

In the case of a hare’s horn and the like, there is no such meaning.

Question: The mind is likewise formless, without shape, and nonresistant. Can it therefore be said to be nonexistent?

Answer: The mind has the function of activity, namely, it can apprehend its objective conditions. Space has no activity; it is only because there is “absence” that things can function there. Thus it should be known to be a nonexistent dharma. Therefore, this concentration first takes space as its object.

Question: Which levels can this concentration take as its objects?

Answer: This concentration takes all levels as its objects, and it also takes Cessation and the Path as objects. However, it takes as its object that portion of Cessation known through inferential knowledge, but not that portion of Cessation known through direct knowledge.

Question: How is this so?

Answer: It takes all Cessation as its object. Present knowledge of dharmas takes as its object present Cessation on its own level, while inferential knowledge takes the other forms of Cessation as its objects. The Path is likewise, for it can take all dharmas as its objects.

Question: Can sentient beings in the Formless Realm give rise to minds belonging to the various levels?

Answer: They can give rise to minds belonging to all levels, as well as undefiled minds.

Question: If so, how can they fall back and sink down?

Answer: Because they abide in karmic retribution, they do not fall back, just as with the power of supernatural abilities in the two realms of Desire and Form. Although abiding in one form, one can possess a different mind and yet not fall back. It is the same here.

Question: What is the difference between the concentration of boundless space and the all-pervading sphere of the base of space?

Answer: The preparatory path undertaken when one wishes to enter the concentration of space is called the all-pervading sphere. Once entry into the concentration has been accomplished, it is called the concentration of space. Here, both the cause and the fruit of the concentration comprise the level and all conditioned states, whether with or without outflows, whether concentrated or unconcentrated, whether defiled or pure; all are called the base of boundless space.

CHAPTER 170: THE THREE FORMLESS CONCENTRATIONS

Having passed entirely beyond the base of boundless space, one then enters the base of boundless consciousness. Because the practitioner is deeply weary of form, he also relinquishes the dharma used to counteract form, just as one who has crossed a river leaves the boat behind and proceeds onward, or as one who has escaped from bandits wishes to go far away. The practitioner is likewise: although he relied upon space to overcome form, he also wishes to relinquish space and go far beyond it.

As for boundless consciousness: because the practitioner uses consciousness to take boundless space as its object, consciousness also becomes boundless. Therefore, he abandons space and takes consciousness as his object. Moreover, just as he took space as his object because he had become wearied by form, so now, becoming wearied by space and wishing to bring it to an end, he takes consciousness as his object.

Furthermore, because this person uses consciousness to take space as its object and regards consciousness as superior, he takes consciousness alone as his object. As the practitioner uses consciousness to follow objects from moment to moment, weariness arises; becoming utterly disenchanted and detached, he again wishes to overcome consciousness and therefore enters the base of nothingness. He gives rise to this thought: “As long as consciousness exists, there is suffering, even if I possess boundless consciousness.” Therefore, he gathers in the mind that takes consciousness as its object.

Because the mind is subtle, he regards this as nothingness. He further thinks: “Nothingness itself is still perception, and perception is painful and afflictive, like sickness or a malignant tumor. Yet the absence of perception is delusion.

If I perceive nothingness, then this itself is existence; thus I have not yet been liberated from all perceptions.” The practitioner sees perception as a calamity and the absence of perception as delusion. Only quiescent cessation is sublime, namely, the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Ordinary beings always fear the absence of perception, regarding it as delusion; therefore, ultimately none of them extinguishes the mind.

Some say that sentient beings in the realm of non-perception can also extinguish the mind. This is incorrect. Why?

If those in the Form Realm can extinguish the mind, how could those in the Formless Realm not be able to do so?

Question: Because the Form Realm has form, the mind can be extinguished there. In the Formless Realm, form has already been extinguished, and now the mind would also be extinguished. If one saw both form and mind extinguished, one would become frightened and confused.

Answer: If those dwelling there are unable to extinguish it, then upon being born here they should be able to extinguish it, as in the concentration of cessation.

Question: The result of extinguishing the mind is non-perception. Therefore, if both form and mind are extinguished, would this not be complete annihilation?

Answer: The attainment of cessation also has a result accompanied by mind; this matter is likewise. Furthermore, if the result has not ceased, this is also called abiding in the result, as in a form produced by transformation. Within the mind of transformation, another result arises; therefore, it cannot be called completely lost.

Thus, it should not be said that mind ceases in the form realm. If this is to be said, it must be said only of the formless realm. Moreover, mind should not cease in the attainment of non-perception.

Why? Because a practitioner must become disenchanted with and detach from mind before being able to extinguish it. If one were disenchanted with mind, one would not be reborn in the formless realm, much less in the form realm.

Furthermore, ordinary beings give rise to the perception of self with regard to mind. As the sutra says: “Throughout their lives, ordinary beings cling to this mind and regard it as the self.” Therefore, they are incapable of even a little disenchantment and detachment. Furthermore, the sutra says: “Followers of other paths can speak of extinguishing three kinds of clinging, but they cannot speak of abandoning clinging to the doctrine of self.” Therefore, they cannot extinguish mind.

Furthermore, only one who correctly understands the Dharma of causes and conditions can realize the emptiness of mind. As stated in the Simile of the Monkey Sutra: “An ordinary being may be able to detach from the body, but cannot detach from the mind.” It would be better to contemplate the body as permanent than to contemplate the mind as permanent. Why?

Because this body visible to the eye may endure for ten years, even up to a hundred years; but that which is called mind, mentation, or consciousness arises, ceases, and changes from moment to moment, like a monkey moving through the trees: releasing one branch, it immediately grasps another, never remaining in one place. If a noble disciple correctly contemplates the Dharma of causes and conditions therein, that disciple can understand impermanence.

Furthermore, one who understands the Dharma of causes and conditions can distinguish consciousness through the differences among sensations. Followers of other paths lack the wisdom to distinguish causes and conditions, and therefore cannot extinguish mind. Furthermore, ordinary beings detach from form but not from mind, and thus do not attain liberation.

If they were able to extinguish both, why would they not attain liberation? Furthermore, ordinary beings fear cessation and therefore can never conceive of nirvana as peaceful and secure cessation. As the sutra says: “No-self and the absence of anything belonging to a self are what ordinary beings fear most.” Furthermore, in the attainment of non-perception, a deluded mind arises.

If one cannot conceive of nirvana as peaceful and secure cessation, how can one extinguish mind? Moreover, according to ordinary principles, one must rely upon a higher stage to relinquish a lower stage. Therefore, there is no cause or condition by which mind can be extinguished.

It is only because, through the power of concentration, subtle perceptions are present without being noticed that one supposes oneself to be without perception. If coarse perceptions arise, one is immediately expelled from that state. It is like calling someone of little wisdom “without wisdom,” or calling food with little salt “unsalted”; like one who faints and loses awareness; like insects that remain underground for many years; or like fish lying within ice.

The same applies to what is here called the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Although perception truly exists, conventionally it is said to be non-perception.

CHAPTER 171: THE ATTAINMENT OF CESSATION

Having completely transcended the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, one personally realizes the cessation of perception and sensation.

Question: Why is complete transcendence not mentioned in connection with the dhyanas, while cessation is not mentioned in connection with the formless attainments?

Answer: I have said that the dhyana attainments all contain such factors as initial application, sustained application, joy, and bliss; therefore, complete transcendence is not mentioned.

Question: In the sphere of infinite space there is still a mind associated with form. Since this matter is already clear, complete transcendence should likewise not be mentioned among the formless attainments.

Answer: When entering the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, one is freed from the mind associated with form, but is not freed from such factors as initial and sustained application. Furthermore, some say that “transcending,” “ceasing,” and “relinquishing” have the same meaning but different names. Moreover, in the formless attainments the mind is firm, whereas the mind at lower stages is disturbed and impaired by distraction. Therefore, complete transcendence is not mentioned there.

Question: If all are said to have thorns, namely perceptions of form and so forth, why is the mind nevertheless said to be firm?

Answer: Although all are said to have thorns, the fourth dhyana is nevertheless also called imperturbable. The same applies to the formless attainments. Because the power of concentration is great, the mind becomes firm.

Question: A trainee should not be able to attain the attainment of cessation, because the trainee has not yet completely transcended the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Is that not so?

Answer: A trainee can perceive the cessation of all formations belonging to the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Although not yet able to prevent them from arising again, the trainee may nevertheless be said to have transcended them.

Question: If “cessation” here is intended to mean nirvana, this contradicts your earlier statement that, in the nine successive cessations, it is mind and the mental factors that cease. Does it not?

Answer: The attainment of cessation is of two kinds: first, that in which all afflictions have been extinguished; and second, that in which they have not yet all been extinguished. One whose afflictions have been extinguished is within liberation; one whose afflictions have not yet all been extinguished is within the successive stages. Furthermore, it is called the attainment of cessation because, first, it extinguishes the afflictions; and second, it extinguishes mind, mental factors, and dharmas.

The cessation of afflictions is the eighth liberation and is also called the fruit of arhatship. The fruit of arhatship extinguishes all perceptions and causes them never to arise again. Here, although the perceptions are extinguished, residual fetters remain; therefore, one cannot prevent them from arising again.

Question: If a practitioner can extinguish mind by means of the nine successive attainments, how can stream-enterers and others personally realize the Dharma of the cessation of mind?

Answer: The cessation within the nine successive stages is called the great cessation. One who has skillfully cultivated the dhyana attainments can attain this cessation through the great strength of the mind of the path. Without such strength, one attains only cessation and cannot attain such great power; therefore, it is called the successive attainment.

The cessation of mind also occurs elsewhere. If mind and the mental factors can be extinguished in the fourth dhyana, and one then enters non-perception, why could they not be extinguished in the first dhyana and the others? Furthermore, the cessation of mind must also exist elsewhere, as the sutra says: “Stream-enterers and others can all personally realize cessation.” Only the cessation of mind is called cessation.

Moreover, there is no other dharma that ceases. Thus, it should be understood that the cessation of mind also exists apart from these nine stages.

Question: If the attainment of cessation can extinguish all mind and mental factors, why does the text mention only the cessation of perception and sensation?

Answer: All mind is called sensation. This sensation is of two kinds: first, perceptive sensation; and second, wisdom sensation. Perceptive sensation is the mind that takes conditioned phenomena as its objects, because perception operates among conventionally designated dharmas. Conventional designation is of two kinds: first, conventional designation based on combination; and second, conventionally designated dharmas. Therefore, every mind that takes conditioned phenomena as its objects is called perception. Wisdom sensation is the mind that takes the unconditioned as its object. Therefore, to speak of the cessation of perception and sensation is to speak of the cessation of all.

Question: Among all minds and mental factors, sensation and perception are the most prominent; therefore, they are mentioned separately. Why? Because the afflictions have two divisions: first, the division of craving; and second, the division of views.

Sensation gives rise to the division of craving, while perception gives rise to the division of views. Moreover, in the two realms of desire and form, sensation is predominant; in the formless realm, perception is predominant. Therefore, only these two are mentioned.

Moreover, among the stations of consciousness, only sensation and perception are mentioned. The stations of consciousness arise from mind and are therefore called formations. Furthermore, if the cessation of sensation and perception is mentioned, this expresses the cessation of all mind and mental factors, because the mental factors are not separate from one another.

Is that not so?

Answer: It is not so. You say they are mentioned separately because they are predominant. If so, mind itself should be mentioned. Why? Because in many places the sutras say that mind is the chief and is also the basis of both divisions of the afflictions. Moreover, it is because of distinctions within mind that sensation and perception are named; therefore, mind should be mentioned. Furthermore, it would be simpler to speak of mind. Thus, what you say is unreasonable.

Question: Why is this attainment said to be personally realized with the body?

Answer: All eight liberations are said to be personally realized with the body. Moreover, this Dharma of cessation cannot be comprehended through words; therefore, it is said to be personally realized with the body. It is like a person who knows the characteristic of cold only upon touching water, not merely by hearing it described. This matter is likewise. Furthermore, this is a state without mind; therefore, it must be said to be personally realized with the body.

Question: You say that the attainment of cessation is a state without mind. This is unreasonable. Why?

Because one who enters this attainment is a sentient being, and in the world there are no sentient beings without mind. Therefore, this is illogical. Moreover, the sutra says: “Life, heat, and consciousness—these three dharmas are never separated from one another.” Thus, the mind is not extinguished.

Furthermore, all sentient beings depend upon the four kinds of nutriment to continue existing. Yet one who enters the attainment of complete cessation no longer has these kinds of nutriment. Why?

Because such a person does not partake of coarse edible nutriment, and contact as nutriment and the others have also ceased. Thus, that person has no nutriment. Moreover, mind arises from mind.

If this mind ceases, other minds will not arise, because there is no immediately antecedent condition. How, then, could a subsequent mind arise again? Furthermore, the mind ceases only upon entering nirvana without remainder, when continuity is severed; it cannot cease elsewhere.

As the sutra says: “By means of form, one transcends the desires; by means of the formless, one transcends form; by means of cessation, one transcends all volitional thoughts and reflections.” Mind consists of volitional thought and reflection, and only by means of cessation can it be transcended. Upon attaining nirvana with remainder, the defiled mind ceases. Upon attaining nirvana without remainder, even the undefiled mind ceases.

This is precisely the meaning of the Buddha-Dharma. Moreover, one who enters the attainment of cessation is not said to be dead. The cessation of mind is called death.

If the mind could cease and then arise again, the dead should also be able to live again, and those who have entered nirvana should also be reborn. Then ultimately no one would be liberated. But this is not actually so.

Therefore, the mind does not cease.

Answer: You say that there are no sentient beings without mind. Although both are alike in being without mind, one in this attainment differs from a dead person. As the sutra asks: “What difference is there between one who has entered the attainment of complete cessation and a dead person?”

It answers: “In a dead person, the three—life, heat, and consciousness—have all ceased. In one who has entered the attainment of complete cessation, only the mind has ceased; life and heat have not departed from the body.” Thus, one should know that there can indeed be a sentient being without mind. Moreover, because this person’s mind remains potentially present through the power of attainment, that person may also be said to possess mind and is not the same as wood or stone.

You say that the three things are never separated. This is said with reference to sentient beings in the Desire Realm and the Form Realm. In the Formless Realm there are life and consciousness but no heat.

Moreover, one who enters the attainment of complete cessation has life and heat but no consciousness; indeed, that very sutra also says that consciousness has departed from the body. Therefore, the statement that the three are never separated is made only with reference to certain circumstances. You ask how one can remain alive without nutriment.

Such a person is sustained by the nutriment of volition previously taken, and at present contacts such as coolness are able to sustain the body. You say that mind arises from mind. One mind serves as the cause of another mind; after acting as its cause, it ceases, and therefore it is able to give rise to another mind.

Question: Once the mind has ceased, how can it give rise to another mind? Just as an eye that has ceased cannot give rise to consciousness.

Answer: Just as karma, after having ceased, can later give rise to its result, so too is this matter. Moreover, the mental faculty and mental consciousness mutually condition one another, whereas the eye and eye-consciousness are not like this. Therefore, your analogy does not establish the point.

You say that the mind ceases only when continuity is severed. This is unreasonable. There are two kinds of cessation: the cessation of form and the cessation of mind.

In some cases, form ceases while mind does not cease, as in the Formless Realm. Conversely, mind may cease while form does not cease, as when one enters the attainment of cessation. Or both form and mind may cease, as when continuity is extinguished.

You say that one who enters the attainment of complete cessation is not called dead. In this person, life and heat have not ceased, whereas in a dead person all three have ceased. This is the distinction.

Moreover, because this person retains life and heat, the mind can arise again, whereas this is not so for a dead person. You say that if a mind that has ceased can arise again, no one could be liberated. This is unreasonable.

Why? Because in one who has entered nirvana, the previously karmically sustained life, heat, and consciousness have ceased, and there is no aspiration for them to arise again. In this person, however, life and heat have not ceased, and beforehand there was an aspiration for the mind to arise again.

As stated in the chapter on the attainment of complete cessation: One who has entered the attainment of complete cessation is able to emerge again by virtue of these six sense bases, the body, and the life faculty. Therefore, the mind can arise again. In one who has entered nirvana, the mind does not arise again.

Thus, one knows that this attainment is without mind.

Question: Why does giving alms to one who has emerged from this attainment enable the donor to receive the result in the present life?

Answer: The mind of one who has emerged from this attainment is exceedingly quiescent. As the sutra says: “When one who has entered the attainment of complete cessation emerges, the mind accords with nirvana.” Moreover, the power of this person’s meditative concentration is strong, and by relying upon this attainment, this person’s wisdom is also great. Because the wisdom is great, it enables the donor to receive a surpassing result.

For example, making offerings to a hundred sravakas does not equal making an offering to a single Buddha. In all such cases, wisdom is regarded as supreme, for it directly cuts off the fetters. This matter is likewise so.

Moreover, one who enters this attainment has cultivated and permeated the mind with many wholesome dharmas, and therefore produces a great result, just as a skilled farmer is certain to reap an abundant harvest. Moreover, when a donor is able to become deeply disenchanted with worldly existence, that donor receives a great result. One who has emerged from the attainment of cessation is profoundly averse to worldly ways; therefore, making offerings to such a person is supreme.

Furthermore, giving to one whose mind is pure yields a great result, whereas giving to one whose mind is defiled does not. This person is free from the defilements associated with provisional designations; therefore, making offerings yields a great result. Moreover, this person constantly abides in the truth of ultimate meaning, whereas others abide in conventional truth.

Furthermore, this person constantly abides in the Dharma free from contention. Why? Because when the mind takes conditioned dharmas as its objects, contention arises.

Moreover, as the sutra says: “Tares and weeds harm the rice crop; greed and desire harm the mind.” Therefore, giving to one without desire yields a great result. The causes and conditions of greed and desire are the marks of provisional designation. One who emerges from this attainment has taken nirvana as the object and is therefore free from the marks of provisional designation.

Moreover, the sutra says: “If one who receives a donor’s offering then enters an immeasurable attainment, by virtue of these causes and conditions the donor gains immeasurable merit.” This attainment of cessation is also immeasurable; therefore, the donor gains immeasurable merit and can receive the result in the present life. Furthermore, this field of merit is adorned with eight virtues. A mind that takes nirvana as its object possesses right view, and the other constituents of merit follow accordingly.

Therefore, it can produce a result in the present life.

Question: Some say that the attainment of complete cessation is a formation dissociated from mind and is also called a worldly dharma. What of this?

Answer: As stated above, one who emerges from this attainment possesses many virtues, such as quiescence, that are never found in the world.

Question: The attainment of complete cessation is called a restraining dharma, because by means of this dharma the mind is prevented from arising. Therefore, it should be called a formation dissociated from mind. It is like iron placed in fire: its black appearance disappears, but when it is removed from the fire, that appearance arises again. Is this matter likewise so?

Answer: If so, nirvana should also be a formation dissociated from mind. Why? Because, by virtue of nirvana, the skandhas do not arise. Yet nirvana is not a formation dissociated from mind. Rather, the dharma of practitioners is simply thus: when entering this attainment, the mind may be prevented from arising in accordance with their aspiration. Therefore, it should not be said to be a formation dissociated from mind.

Question: This attainment is entered in sequence. Does one also emerge from it in the same sequence?

Answer: One also emerges in sequence, gradually returning to coarser states of mind.

Question: The sutra says: “One who has just emerged from the attainment of complete cessation is touched by three kinds of contact, namely: the unmoving, the signless, and nothingness.” Why is this so?

Answer: Among minds that take the unconditioned as their object, the various contacts are called the unmoving, the signless, and nothingness. The unmoving is emptiness. A mind that takes conditioned dharmas as its objects is light and restless and therefore moves, apprehending form, feeling, and the rest. In emptiness there are no signs. In the signless, there are no possessions such as greed. This person who had been without mind first takes nirvana as the object and afterward takes conditioned dharmas as objects. Therefore, it is said that upon emerging, that person is touched by these three kinds of contact.

Question: Some say that the mind entering the attainment of complete cessation is with outflows, while the mind emerging from the attainment may be either with outflows or without outflows. What of this?

Answer: It is not with outflows. Before practitioners can enter this attainment, they must first demolish all conditioned dharmas. Only after completing this demolition can they enter it. Upon emerging, a mind taking nirvana as its object becomes manifest. Thus, one should know that both are without outflows.

Question: The sutra says: “A practitioner entering the attainment of cessation does not think to himself that he is entering it; when emerging, he likewise does not think to himself that he is emerging.” If so, how is he able to enter it?

Answer: Because he has practiced it continually, the power of his concentration is firm and strong; although he does not consciously think of entering, he is able to enter. Furthermore, ever since this practitioner ceased engaging with the conditioned, he has previously entered cessation. If he were unable to restrain the mind and allowed it to take conditioned phenomena as its objects, this could not be called entry. Therefore, the sutra says: “One who enters this concentration must first discipline and train the mind.” Thus, he is able to enter it.

Question: If there is no distinction, it is impossible to cultivate a mind that takes the unconditioned as its object. What benefit is gained from it?

Answer: Because it has been cultivated for a long time, the concentration becomes firm, and seeing and knowing become clear. It is like a mind taking conditioned phenomena as its objects and seeing each thought perish moment by moment. There is likewise no difference in their moment-by-moment cessation; it is only through long cultivation that the mind becomes firm. This matter is also so.

CHAPTER ELEVEN: THE SPHERES OF TOTALITY — 172

Without destroying the previous object, the mind’s power freely extends over it; this is called a sphere of totality. The practitioner takes up a small characteristic and then, through the power of resolute understanding, causes it to expand greatly. Why is this? Because this is the power of mental concentration. If one enters into reality, one can cause everything to become empty; but when entering by resolute understanding, one can cause everything to accord with the characteristic previously apprehended.

Question: What is the nature of resolute understanding?

Answer: Blue and the other colors become abundant and immeasurable. In brief, there are four fundamental kinds: earth and the other four great elements. The four fundamental colors can disperse this constituent: that is space. Because consciousness can cognize boundless space, it too is called boundless. Why is this? Because a finite phenomenon cannot apprehend the boundless. These are called the ten.

Question: Earth actually contains all manner of things. How can the practitioner contemplate it solely as earth?

Answer: Having long practiced this contemplation and continually apprehended the characteristic of earth, he subsequently sees only earth and sees nothing else.

Question: When the practitioner sees the characteristic of earth, is it actually earth?

Answer: Through the power of resolute understanding, he sees it as earth, but in reality what he sees is not necessarily earth.

Question: If something exists through the power of transformation, is the transformed object then not real?

Answer: Because it is produced through the transformative power of concentration, all that is created is real, such as light, water, and so forth.

Question: Some masters of the treatises say that one enters the spheres of totality only in the fourth dhyana. How is this matter?

Answer: What fault would there be if they existed in the Desire Realm and in the first three dhyanas? The final two spheres of totality each belong to their own plane. All ten of these phenomena are contaminated because they do not destroy their objective conditions.

Question: Does not the characteristic of space destroy form?

Answer: Through resolute understanding, the practitioner takes the empty spaces in the eyes, nose, and so forth as the characteristic of emptiness; he cannot directly destroy actual form. Therefore, this too is called resolute understanding.

Question: The sutra says: “One who enters the concentration of the totality of earth thinks: ‘Earth is precisely the self, and the self is precisely earth.’” Why does such a thought arise?

Answer: Because the practitioner perceives the mind as pervading everything, this thought arises in him: “Everything is the self.”

Question: Some say that this concentration takes as its objects only earth and the other elements pertaining to the Desire Realm. How is this matter?

Answer: What fault would there be if it took as its objects earth and the other elements pertaining to both the Desire Realm and the Form Realm? Even if this concentration were also to take other phenomena as its objects, what fault would there be? Moreover, this concentration is a contemplation through resolute understanding that takes the false as its object; there is no earth or other element that is not false.

Question: The Buddha’s disciples also contemplate earth and the other elements. How is this matter?

Answer: When those in training contemplate them, it is entirely for the purpose of destroying attachment.

Question: In reality, not everything is earth or one of the other elements. How can this concentration not be a distortion?

Answer: This contemplation contains an element of delusion, because the view of self arises within it. Although the contemplation of impurity and the others is not true in itself, it accords with dispassion. This contemplation is not like that; therefore, it contains an element of delusion.

Question: Why does one not contemplate feeling and the other phenomena as boundless, but contemplates only consciousness?

Answer: What is apprehended is earth and the other elements, while that which apprehends is consciousness. Therefore, one perceives consciousness but does not perceive feeling. Furthermore, as stated previously, feeling and the other phenomena are all distinctions within the mind. Moreover, the practitioner does not perceive feeling and the others as pervading everything, because pain and pleasure are not experienced everywhere. If a disciple of the Buddha cultivates this concentration, it is solely for the purpose of destroying attachment to its objects. Why is this? Because those objects are what practitioners become attached to. If he does not destroy that attachment, he is no different from ordinary worldlings.

CHAPTER TWELVE: THE TEN PERCEPTIONS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SIGNLESS — 173

The perception of impermanence, the perception of suffering, the perception of non-self, the perception of the repulsiveness of food, the perception that nothing in the entire world is delightful, the perception of uncertainty, the perception of death, the perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion, and the perception of cessation. The perception of impermanence means decisively perceiving impermanent phenomena as impermanent.

Question: Why is everything impermanent?

Answer: All these phenomena arise from causes and conditions. They are then destroyed by causes and conditions and therefore return to impermanence.

Question: That is not so. Some phenomena, although arising from conditions, are not impermanent. For example, the scriptures of non-Buddhist traditions say that whoever builds three temples will be reborn in an eternal place. Moreover, is the body of your Brahma-world not eternal?

Answer: Yet your own doctrine also says that Shakra, Lord of the Devas, though able to build a hundred temples, still undergoes decline. A verse also says: “Many Shakras and others built more than hundreds of thousands of temples, yet all of them were entirely impermanent.” Even hundreds of thousands of temples do not endure; therefore, it should be understood that three temples are also impermanent. Furthermore, the bodily constituents of Shakra, Lord of the Devas, and the other heavenly kings also perish.

Therefore, among phenomena born from conditions, none can be eternal. Moreover, in your doctrine the Vedas are held in esteem. The Vedas say that through wisdom one attains the state of deathlessness.

As they say: “Seeing the form of the solar Great Being surpassing material nature, one who first accords with the intention of this being can attain the deathless path; there is no other path. The spirit of a lesser being is small, while the spirit of a great being is great, and it constantly abides within the body. If one does not understand the characteristic of this body, then even practicing and reciting the Vedic scriptures and the like is of no benefit.” Your doctrine says that Brahma-kings also constantly make offerings, observe precepts, and perform various meritorious deeds.

If they know that the body is eternal, why would they need to cultivate merit? Furthermore, I have heard that your scriptures say that Brahma-kings have aversion to sexual desire. If sexual desire exists, then anger and all the other afflictions must also exist.

If afflictions exist, then sinful karma must exist. How, then, could such a sinful person attain eternal liberation? Moreover, not all sages worship the gods, nor do all of them cultivate the path to the Brahma Heaven.

If that deity were eternal, then surely all should worship and cultivate the path to him.

Moreover, all things whatsoever are impermanent. Why is this? When the great kalpa comes to an end and is destroyed, even earth, water, wind, and fire no longer remain.

Furthermore, time revolves like a wheel; therefore, it should be known to be impermanent. Moreover, those who perfected morality, concentration, and wisdom, together with immeasurable virtues—the great sages such as Dipankara Buddha, the pratyekabuddhas, Mahasammata and the others, and the kings at the beginning of the kalpa—were all impermanent. How, then, could anything be permanent?

Furthermore, the Buddha himself taught that all conditioned phenomena are definitively characterized by impermanence. As stated in the Cow-Dung Sutta: “The Buddha held up a small amount of cow dung and said to the bhikkhus: There is not even this much form that is permanently fixed and unchanging.” This sutra extensively explains that even the karmic rewards of Sakra, Brahma, and wheel-turning kings come to an end. Thus, it should be known that all things are impermanent.

Moreover, the lifespans of all beings throughout the three realms have their limits: in the Avici hell, the maximum lifespan is one kalpa; in the Sanghata hell, the lifespan is half a kalpa; in the remaining hells, it is variously greater or lesser. The longest-lived among dragons also live for one kalpa. The longest-lived hungry ghosts live for seventy thousand years.

Those in Purvavideha live for 250 years; those in Aparagodaniya live for 500 years; those in Uttarakuru invariably live for one thousand years; and those in Jambudvipa may live for immeasurable kalpas or for only ten years. The gods of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings live for 500 years, and those in the Realm of the Summit of Existence live for eighty thousand kalpas. Thus, it should be known that everything throughout the three realms is impermanent.

Moreover, impermanence is known through three kinds of trustworthy evidence: among things directly perceived, no permanently fixed phenomenon is seen; in the teachings spoken by the sages, no permanent phenomenon is found; and through inference as well, no permanence is known, for inference must be based upon prior direct perception. Furthermore, if anything were permanent, why would the wise extinguish all phenomena in their quest for liberation?

Who would not wish to remain forever united with what they love and enjoy every pleasure? Yet in truth, all the wise seek liberation. Thus, it should be known that conditioned phenomena cannot remain forever.

Moreover, all conditioned phenomena should be said to perish from thought-moment to thought-moment, without pausing even briefly; how much less could they be permanent?

Question: What can be accomplished by cultivating the perception of impermanence?

Answer: It can destroy the afflictions. As stated in a sutra: “When the perception of impermanence is well cultivated, it can destroy all defilement of the Desire Realm, defilement of the Form Realm, and defilement of the Formless Realm, as well as restlessness, conceit, and ignorance.”

Question: That is not so. This perception of impermanence may instead increase sensual desire. For example, when a person realizes that the prime of youth will not last long, he becomes deeply attached to sexual pleasure.

Knowing that beautiful flowers will not last, he hastens to enjoy them; knowing that another person’s beauty will not always be his to possess, his lust grows all the more quickly. Thus, upon recognizing impermanence, attachment arises. Therefore, the perception of impermanence cannot eliminate sensual desire.

There are also people who, because they know things to be impermanent, commit killing, stealing, and the like. Even animals know impermanence, yet they cannot destroy their afflictions. Therefore, cultivating the perception of impermanence is of no benefit whatsoever.

Answer: Because things are impermanent, the suffering of separation arises; youth, happiness, longevity, wealth, and honor are lost. For this reason, the wise do not give rise to delight. Because they have no delight, craving does not arise.

Craving arises because of feeling; when feeling ceases, craving also ceases. Thus, it should be known that the perception of impermanence can diminish sensual desire. Moreover, if phenomena are impermanent, they are therefore non-self.

When a practitioner is able to contemplate impermanence and non-self, the thought of self does not arise. Since there is no thought of self, there is nothing belonging to self. When self and what belongs to self do not exist, what could sensual desire be?

Moreover, one who cultivates the perception of impermanence sees both his own body and those of others perish in every thought-moment; how could craving arise? Furthermore, the practitioner sees that whatever he seeks is impermanent and subject to decay, and that he has thus been deceived; therefore, he does not become attached. Moreover, beings take no delight in what is unstable, just as people do not cherish worn-out and broken vessels.

It is also like a woman who hears that a certain man will live no longer than seven more days: even if he is handsome, virtuous, noble, and powerful, who would desire to approach him? It is precisely through the perception of impermanence that she does not become attached. Moreover, the wise constantly cultivate the perception of separation and therefore do not delight in union.

Why is this? Because the wise constantly reflect upon the sufferings of decline, loss, and the like. They do not crave even the sensual pleasures of the heavens, but seek only liberation.

Your assertion that impermanence increases sensual desire is therefore unreasonable. If a person has not yet eliminated self-conceit, then upon seeing external things to be impermanent, he gives rise to sorrow; because he loses what he cherishes, craving and seeking arise. Such an ordinary person renounces sensual pleasures yet does not know how to escape suffering, just like a small child who, after being struck by his mother, crawls back into her embrace.

The wise know that so long as the cause of suffering remains, suffering cannot cease; therefore, they abandon the cause of suffering, namely, the five skandhas. Furthermore, this practitioner tears apart the internal skandhas and realizes the mind of non-self; thus, even when external things are lost, sorrow does not arise. Having realized non-self, what more could he seek?

One who cultivates the perception of impermanence likewise seeks nothing further.

Furthermore, if this perception of impermanence has not yet been able to give rise to the perceptions of suffering and non-self, it is not said to be complete and capable of destroying the afflictions. Therefore, a sutra states: “One must single-mindedly and correctly contemplate the five skandhas as impermanent.” If one does not break through the internal skandhas but merely sees external things as impermanent, then because the thought of self remains, sorrow arises; this is not called correct contemplation.

Moreover, although people such as butchers and hunters see impermanence, they do not give rise to disenchantment and detachment; though they know impermanence, they cannot be said to cultivate it well. Furthermore, although a person may be able to contemplate correctly, if he is not constantly diligent in cultivation, craving will intrude; therefore, it is said that one must be “single-minded.” Moreover, if a person cultivates impermanence only slightly while his afflictions are many, he cannot cure them, just as a small amount of medicine cannot cure a severe illness.

This matter is likewise so. Therefore, it is said that single-minded, correct contemplation of impermanence can destroy the afflictions. Furthermore, knowing phenomena to be impermanent is called true wisdom, and within true wisdom there are no afflictions such as craving.

Why is this? Because craving and the other afflictions arise through ignorance as their cause and condition.

Thus, it should be known that impermanence does not increase sensual desire. Furthermore, the perception of impermanence can extinguish all afflictions. If a practitioner knows that an object is impermanent, craving does not arise. Moreover, knowing that this person will certainly die, why give rise to anger? How could one of great wisdom become angry with a person who is about to die? Furthermore, if phenomena are impermanent, how could one use them as grounds for giving rise to pride? Moreover, knowing that phenomena are by nature impermanent, one does not give rise to delusion. When delusion is absent, doubt and the other afflictions are also absent. Thus, it should be known that impermanence counteracts the afflictions.

CHAPTER 174: THE CHARACTERISTIC OF SUFFERING

Whatever causes harm is called suffering. This suffering is of three kinds: the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned formations. The manifest and actual suffering inflicted by knives, clubs, and the like is called the suffering of suffering. The many sufferings that arise when one is separated from those one loves, such as one’s wife and children, are called the suffering of change. When, through the wisdom of emptiness and non-self, one knows that all conditioned phenomena are capable of causing harm, this is called the suffering of conditioned formations. The corresponding perception of such suffering is called the perception of suffering.

Question: What benefits are gained by cultivating the perception of suffering?

Answer: This perception of suffering bears the fruit of disenchantment and detachment. Why is this so? Because one who cultivates the perception of suffering does not rely upon craving or delight.

Because there is no delight, there is no fondness. Furthermore, if a practitioner knows that a dharma is suffering, he will not grasp at any conditioned formations. If a dharma, though impermanent and without self, could not give rise to suffering, one would certainly not abandon it.

Because it is suffering, one abandons it; by abandoning suffering, one gains liberation from suffering. Furthermore, what all sentient beings fear most is suffering. Whether young or strong, old, wise or foolish, noble or lowly, all who recognize this characteristic of suffering become disenchanted and detached.

All practitioners who are able to give rise to a mind of peace, security, quiescence, and cessation regarding nirvana do so because they have produced the perception of suffering regarding samsara. How may this characteristic be known? If sentient beings, bound by the suffering of the desire realm and tormented by it, give rise to the perception of quiescence regarding the first dhyana, then this is how it is known.

In this way, progressively, until they are afflicted by the suffering of the realm of the summit of existence, they give rise to the perception of quiescence regarding nirvana. Furthermore, all the faults in samsara are suffering. As a sutra says: “The fault in forms is that the characteristic of form is suffering, impermanence, and disintegration.” Furthermore, because of ignorance, beings cling to this suffering.

How is this known? Because sentient beings conceive pleasure in what is truly suffering. If they produce the perception of suffering very deeply, they attain disenchantment and detachment.

Therefore, the Buddha said: “Because I awakened to suffering, I taught the Truth of Suffering.” Here, the Buddha taught this meaning on the basis of conventional truth. Wherever devas and human beings in the world conceive pleasure, he said that his disciples conceive suffering therein. Only after producing the perception of suffering can they become disenchanted and detached.

Furthermore, the utmost delusion is to conceive pleasure in suffering. Because of this perception, all sentient beings wander back and forth through samsara, their minds and consciousnesses troubled and confused. If they can perceive suffering, they attain liberation.

Furthermore, the four kinds of nutriment produce the body of a subsequent existence. Through this perception of suffering, one can cut off those kinds of nutriment, regarding them as eating the flesh of one’s child, as eating the flesh of a flayed ox, as eating a heap of fire, and as being pierced by a hundred sharp spearheads. Each of these four kinds of nutriment embodies the meaning of suffering.

Through this perception of suffering, one can cut off all forms of nutriment. Furthermore, one who cultivates the perception of suffering does not delight in dwelling within the four stations of consciousness, because he sees them all as suffering. Just as foolish moths hurl themselves into a flame because they perceive it as pleasurable, while the wise, knowing that fire can burn, keep far away from it, so too are ordinary people: because of the delusion of ignorance, they cast the body of future retribution into the fire; the wise, through the perception of suffering, are able to attain liberation.

Furthermore, all three realms are suffering and causes and conditions of suffering. Painful feeling therein is suffering; that which can produce painful feeling is a cause and condition of suffering. Painful feeling therein is suffering; that which can produce painful feeling is a cause and condition of suffering.

Although something may not immediately be painful, one will certainly suffer from it afterward. Therefore, one should contemplate everything in the world as suffering, give rise to a mind of disenchantment and detachment, and not grasp at any dharmas; one will then attain liberation.

CHAPTER 175: THE PERCEPTION OF NON-SELF

The practitioner sees that all dharmas bear the marks of decay and destruction. For example, one grasps form as the self; when that form disintegrates, one knows it to bear the mark of disintegration and thus abandons the thought of self. Feeling and the other skandhas are likewise. It is like a person swept away by the waters of a mountain ravine who finds something to grasp and cling to, only for that object to be uprooted and torn away. The practitioner is likewise: he grasps an object as the self, but when he sees that object disintegrate, he knows there is no self. Therefore, regarding non-self, one should cultivate the perception of non-self.

Question: What benefits are gained by cultivating the perception of non-self?

Answer: Only by cultivating the perception of non-self can the perception of suffering be perfected. Because ordinary people have the perception of self, they fail to see suffering in what is truly suffering. In contrast, through the perception of non-self, they recognize even a slight suffering as harmful.

Furthermore, through the perception of non-self, one can cultivate the mind of relinquishment. Why is this so? Because of the perception of self, one fears the complete loss of the self.

If one can truly know that only suffering is lost and that there is no self that could be lost, one can cultivate relinquishment. Furthermore, through the perception of non-self, one can constantly possess happiness. Why is this so?

Because everything is impermanent. If, amid this, thoughts of self and what belongs to self arise, one thinks, “I will cease to exist, and what belongs to me will also be lost,” and thus constantly suffers. If one instead gives rise to this thought, “There is no self and nothing belonging to a self,” then when dharmas disintegrate, no suffering arises.

Furthermore, through the perception of non-self, the practitioner’s mind is purified. Why is this so? Because all afflictions arise from the view of self.

Thinking, “This benefits me,” one gives rise to craving; conversely, thinking, “This harms me,” one gives rise to anger. Taking something to be the self, one gives rise to pride.

Thinking, “After my life ends, shall I exist or not exist? Shall I act or not act?” one gives rise to doubt and wrong views. Faults such as these all arise because of the self, producing the afflictions.

Through the perception of non-self, however, those afflictions cease. Because the afflictions cease, the mind is purified. Because the mind is purified, one can regard gold and stones, sandalwood and axes, praise and abuse alike; the mind is free from hatred and affection, peaceful and quiescent.

Thus it should be known that the mind of one who perceives non-self is purified. Furthermore, apart from the perception of non-self, there is no other Path capable of bringing liberation. Why is this so?

One who asserts the existence of a self, upon knowing that there is no self and nothing belonging to a self, can establish the mind decisively in this truth and immediately attain liberation.

Question: That is not so. The perception of non-self may instead give rise to craving. For example, craving for a woman’s beauty arises precisely because she is not related to oneself. Thus, if one acts toward what is not self, can one accumulate demerit and merit? Why is this so? If one harms or benefits oneself, how could there be demerit or merit?

Answer: A mind that holds to a self can give rise to craving. Regarding one’s own body, one produces the conception of a male; regarding another person, one produces the conception of a female; only afterward does craving and attachment arise. Furthermore, all attachment arises through provisional designation, and the characteristics attributed to that person are themselves provisional designations. Therefore, craving does not arise from non-self. Moreover, one whose mind realizes non-self does not accumulate karma. This perception of non-self can cut off all afflictions and karma; therefore, it should be cultivated.

End of Fascicle 13 of the Treatise on the Establishment of Truth