成實論

CHAPTER 187: CALMING AND INSIGHT

Question: In many places in the Buddhist sutras, the bhiksus are often instructed: “Whether in a secluded place, beneath a tree, or in an empty dwelling, one should contemplate two dharmas: CALMING and INSIGHT.” If all dharmas of dhyana and samadhi should be kept in mind, why are only CALMING and INSIGHT mentioned?

Answer: CALMING is SAMADHI, and INSIGHT is PRAJNA. All wholesome dharmas newly arising through cultivation are included within these two dharmas. Moreover, the prajna of hearing and reflection present in a distracted mind is also included within these dharmas, because these two dharmas are capable of bringing the Dharma of the Path to completion.

Why is this so? Because calming can restrain the fetters, while INSIGHT can cut them off. CALMING is like grasping the grass, while INSIGHT is like the sickle that cuts it.

CALMING is like sweeping the ground, while INSIGHT is like removing the refuse. CALMING is like scraping away grime, while INSIGHT is like water that washes it clean. CALMING is like water that moistens, while INSIGHT is like fire that cooks.

CALMING is like the head of a suppurating abscess, while INSIGHT is like the knife that excises it. CALMING is like opening a vein, while INSIGHT is like letting the blood. CALMING restrains the agitated mind, while INSIGHT rouses the sunken mind.

CALMING is like sprinkling yellow water, while INSIGHT is like applying fire to roast it. CALMING is like a cord used to bind and lead, while INSIGHT is like a knife used to scrape. CALMING is like using pincers to pull out a thorn, while INSIGHT is like drawing a blade to cut hair.

CALMING is like armor, while INSIGHT is like a weapon. CALMING is like standing firm, while INSIGHT is like releasing an arrow. CALMING is like drinking oil, while INSIGHT is like taking medicine.

CALMING is like kneading clay, while INSIGHT is like impressing a seal. CALMING is like refining gold, while INSIGHT is like casting an object. Furthermore, worldly beings all fall into the two extremes of either suffering or pleasure.

CALMING is able to relinquish pleasure, while INSIGHT is able to free one from suffering. Again, among the seven purifications, purification of morality and purification of mind are CALMING, while the other five dharmas are INSIGHT. Among the eight awakenings of a great being, six awakenings are CALMING and two are INSIGHT.

Among the four bases of mindfulness, three bases of mindfulness are CALMING, while the fourth base of mindfulness is INSIGHT. The four bases of spiritual power are CALMING, while the four right efforts are INSIGHT. Among the five faculties, four faculties are CALMING, while the faculty of prajna is INSIGHT.

The same applies to the five powers. Among the seven factors of awakening, three factors are CALMING and three are INSIGHT, while the factor of mindfulness belongs to both. Among the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, three factors are morality, two are CALMING, and three are INSIGHT.

Morality also belongs to CALMING. Furthermore, CALMING is able to stop craving, while INSIGHT eliminates ignorance. As stated in the sutra: “To cultivate CALMING is to cultivate the mind; cultivating the mind brings an end to the acceptance of craving.

To cultivate INSIGHT is to cultivate prajna; when prajna is cultivated, ignorance ceases.” Furthermore, through freedom from craving, the mind is liberated; through freedom from ignorance, prajna is liberated. Once these two kinds of liberation have been attained, nothing further remains to be done; therefore, only these two dharmas are mentioned.

Question: If CALMING and INSIGHT are able to cultivate the mind and prajna, and through cultivating the mind and prajna craving and ignorance are ended, why is it specifically said that CALMING cultivates the mind and ends craving and attachment, while INSIGHT cultivates prajna and ends ignorance?

Answer: In one whose mind is distracted, successive thoughts range among form and the other objects. When this succession of thoughts attains the Dharma of CALMING, it ceases; therefore, it is said that CALMING is able to cultivate the mind. Because knowledge arises when thought has ceased, it is said that INSIGHT is able to cultivate prajna.

Since cultivation occurs only after INSIGHT has arisen, all of it is called the cultivation of prajna. Initial prajna is called INSIGHT; only afterward is it called prajna. When the sutra states, “Cultivating CALMING is able to end craving,” it speaks of restraint and cessation.

Why? Craving for external sensual objects, beginning with form, arises in relation to them; but if the medicine of CALMING is attained, it can no longer arise. As stated in the sutra: “When a practitioner attains pure joy, one relinquishes impure joy.” When it is said that ignorance ceases, this means its ultimate cessation.

How is this known? Because when ignorance ceases, craving and the other afflictions are permanently ended and no longer remain. The sutra also says that through freedom from craving, the mind is liberated; this is called restraint and cessation.

Through freedom from ignorance, prajna is liberated; this is called ultimate cessation. There are two kinds of liberation: temporary liberation and unshakable liberation. Temporary liberation is restraint and cessation; unshakable liberation is ultimate cessation.

Question: Temporary liberation is the undefiled liberation of the five kinds of arhats, while unshakable liberation is the undefiled liberation of the arhat whose Dharma is unshakable. Why, then, is it said to be merely restraint and cessation?

Answer: This is not undefiled liberation. Why? Temporary liberation relies only upon a superior power to restrain the fetters for a short time, but it is not yet able to end them permanently. They arise again afterward; therefore, it is not undefiled. Moreover, this liberation is called “temporary” because it is a liberation still associated with attachment, whereas an arhat who has exhausted the outflows no longer has anything to which attachment may arise.

Question: If so, does the morality cherished by the noble ones not exist?

Answer: Because trainees have not yet exhausted the outflows, the notion of self occasionally arises in them. Therefore, attachment to morality arises. It is not that an arhat, in whom the notion of self has been permanently extinguished, gives rise to attachment again.

Question: The arhat Cù-Đề, possessing temporary liberation, fell away and lost it six times. Fearing that he would fall away a seventh time, he took a knife and killed himself. If what he lost had been conditioned by the outflows, he would not have gone so far as to kill himself. Therefore, it should be understood that temporary liberation is not called conditioned by the outflows.

Answer: This person fell away from and lost the dhyana and samadhi he had employed to end the fetters. He fell away from that samadhi six times. On the seventh occasion, he again attained that samadhi and then resolved to kill himself. At that very moment, he immediately realized the Path of the arhat. Therefore, Mara and his host surrounded the corpse of the deceased trainee on all four sides, seeking the consciousness that had departed from him. They then went before the Buddha and said: “Blessed One! Why did your disciple die before his outflows had been exhausted?” The Buddha said: “That person had uprooted craving and entered nirvana.”

Question: If ending craving is called restraint and cessation, the sutra says: “The mind is liberated from craving; prajna is liberated from anger and delusion.” It also says: “The mind is liberated from the outflow of sensual desire.” In this way, should all these be called five liberations rather than true liberation?

Answer: The cessation of ignorance is also spoken of therein; thus, it is known to be ultimate liberation. When the ending of craving is spoken of, it may mean either restraint and cessation or ultimate cessation. If true knowledge has not arisen, it is restraint and cessation; when true knowledge arises in accordance with it, it is ultimate cessation. Yet there is no ultimate ending of craving through the Dharma of CALMING. If there were, followers of other paths would also be able to end craving ultimately. But in truth this is not so. Therefore, it is not so. It should thus be understood that it remains restraint and cessation.

Question: The sutra says: “By using CALMING to cultivate the mind, one relies upon INSIGHT and attains liberation; by using INSIGHT to cultivate the mind, one relies upon CALMING and attains liberation.” How is this to be understood?

Answer: A practitioner may, through dhyana and samadhi, produce the knowledge that takes cessation as its object. This is using CALMING to cultivate the mind, relying upon INSIGHT, and attaining liberation. Or one may, with a distracted mind, discern the skandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, and so forth, and through this attain the cessation of the conditions and the cutting off of the fetters. This is using INSIGHT to cultivate the mind, relying upon CALMING, and attaining liberation. If one attains the bases of mindfulness and the other factors conducive to realization, and gathers the mind, then both CALMING and INSIGHT are cultivated. Furthermore, all practitioners rely upon these two dharmas to attain the cessation of mind and liberation.

CHAPTER 188: CULTIVATING SAMADHI

Question: You speak of cultivating samadhi. This concentrated mind arises and ceases from moment to moment; how, then, can it be cultivated?

Answer: We presently observe that cultivated bodily karma perishes from moment to moment, yet through repeated cultivation it acquires extraordinary efficacy. As cultivation continues over time, it progressively increases, becoming beneficial, firm, and easy to remember, as in recitation and the like. Therefore, one should know that although mental karma perishes from moment to moment, it can still be cultivated—just as fire can transform raw food into cooked food, water can wear away stone, and wind can move objects.

In this way, although phenomena perish from moment to moment, they all possess the power of accumulation. Moreover, when afflictions are habitually followed, they consequently grow intense. For example, if a person in the world habitually indulges in sensual desire, that person’s mind becomes filled with desire.

Anger and delusion are likewise. As a sutra says: “Whatever a person repeatedly thinks about, the mind inclines toward that matter. Thus, if one constantly follows thoughts of sensual desire, the mind inclines toward sensual desire.” The other two kinds of thought are likewise.

Therefore, one should know that although this mind perishes from moment to moment, it can nevertheless be cultivated. Furthermore, volition is said to increase. We presently observe that all phenomena are capable of increasing.

As a sutra says: “Because of wrong mindfulness, in a practitioner, sensual desire and the other influxes that have not yet arisen come to arise, while those already arisen increase—that is, they progress from the lower to the middle, and from the middle to the higher, just as from a seed arise a sprout, stem, branches, leaves, flowers, fruit, and further seeds.” We presently observe that all things gradually increase from their causes; such phenomena as concentration and wisdom should likewise be understood.

Moreover, we presently observe that when sesame seeds are perfumed, their fragrance increasingly grows. Although the fragrance and the sesame seeds do not remain from moment to moment, they still possess the power of perfuming. Therefore, one should know that phenomena which perish from moment to moment can also be cultivated.

Question: Sesame seeds are enduring phenomena, whereas the fragrance of flowers has no mind that remains and reaches them to perfume them. Since the four kinds of mindfulness perish from moment to moment, how can this be used as an analogy for cultivation?

Answer: There are no enduring phenomena. All phenomena perish from moment to moment. This has already been established above, so it cannot again be raised as an objection. Furthermore, if phenomena did not perish from moment to moment, they could not be cultivated. If their substance permanently endured, what benefit could cultivation bring? It is precisely because phenomena arise and perish from moment to moment, progressing through lower, middle, and higher stages, that cultivation is possible.

Question: Flowers come into contact with sesame seeds and can perfume them, but wisdom does not come into contact with the mind; therefore, there can be no cultivation.

Answer: This matter has already been clearly explained in the preceding analogy concerning karma. What is called subsequent karma does not reach prior karma. Earlier words do not await later words, yet bodily and verbal karma still possess the characteristic of cultivation.

Therefore, your assertion that what does not reach something cannot cultivate it cannot be regarded as a valid objection. Moreover, we presently observe many cases in which the result and its cause do not exist simultaneously, yet a result is nevertheless obtained from the cause. In the same way, although mental phenomena perish from moment to moment, they can still be cultivated.

Furthermore, although the water given to a seed does not reach the sprout and the other later stages, it nevertheless causes the sprout and the rest to become moist and flourish. In the same way, through the cultivation of wisdom, earlier and later minds mutually promote their growth.

Question: If sesame seeds perish from moment to moment, other sesame seeds arise. Do these sesame seeds arise already perfumed, or do they arise unperfumed? If they arise unperfumed, there will ultimately be no perfuming. If they arise perfumed, what need is there to perfume them for a long time?

Answer: It is because there is a perfuming cause. Just as when a seed receives water, the sprout becomes moist and flourishes, so, because the previous flowers were joined with the sesame seeds, other sesame seeds arise; hence, they arise through perfuming. As for your question, “What need is there to perfume them for a long time?”—your own scripture says: “Through conjunction with fire, the particles bearing the characteristic of blackness perish, and particles bearing the characteristic of redness arise.” If, upon its first conjunction, the fire causes the phenomenon bearing the characteristic of blackness to perish, then the characteristic of blackness ought not to arise again.

If, upon its first conjunction, the fire causes the phenomenon bearing the characteristic of redness to arise, then what need is there for subsequent conjunction with fire? If, when fire first conjoins with it, the characteristic of blackness arises, then the characteristic of redness should never arise. Or, if the characteristic of redness arises at the second moment, what need is there for prolonged conjunction with fire?

If you maintain that the characteristic of redness arises gradually, the mind is likewise; what fault is there in this? Decay and other such processes are also like this. Moreover, although phenomena possess causes and conditions, they still arise in sequence, just as, after conception, the body gradually forms, and just as a seed, roots, and the other stages gradually arise.

In the same way, although concentration, wisdom, and other phenomena perish from moment to moment, they nevertheless arise sequentially through lower, middle, and higher stages. Furthermore, the subtle qualities produced by cultivation continue through successive different minds, just as the subtle action of claws, hair, and feathers gradually transforms an egg, and just as the warmth of the skin of the hand gradually wears down the handle of an axe until it is exhausted.

The mind is likewise. Because concentration and wisdom are subtle, they must be cultivated repeatedly. Moreover, the effect of cultivation is known only when the proper time arrives. As a verse says:

Even if a person reads and recites throughout the day, that person may still be unable to understand clearly until the time of ripening arrives. Likewise, perfuming sesame seeds all at once with many flowers is not as effective as gradually perfuming them for a long time with a few flowers. Oil soaking into a thick wall and similar processes are also like this. We presently observe that the subtle growth of seeds, roots, sprouts, and the like cannot be seen, for they grow each day by only about the width of the tip of a hair. The bodies of infants and the ripening of ghee, milk, and the like are also like this. Therefore, one should know that the subtle process of cultivating the path is difficult to comprehend.

Question: Some phenomena accumulate rapidly in a single moment. For example, a person who has never before seen a form may become attached to it immediately upon seeing it. There are also those who attain extensive understanding in a brief time. Why, then, do you speak only of repeated cultivation?

Answer: All these people cultivated in the past; therefore, one should know that their attainment is the accumulation of repeated cultivation. This has already been clearly explained. Furthermore, merely arousing the thought does not bring an undertaking to completion.

As a sutra says: “If one is unable to diligently cultivate wholesome phenomena but merely wishes not to experience any phenomena, and wishes for the mind to be liberated from the influxes, that person’s aspiration will ultimately not be fulfilled, because that person is unable to cultivate wholesome phenomena diligently.” If practitioners can diligently cultivate wholesome phenomena, then even without making a vow, their minds will still be liberated from the influxes, because results arise from causes and not from wishing.

It is just as a sparrow need only diligently incubate its eggs; it need not pray that its chicks emerge from their shells. Moreover, a lamp does not burn brightly and clearly merely because one wishes it to do so. Its oil must be full, its wick must be clean, and nothing must disturb it; only then will its light be bright and clear.

Likewise, merely wishing cannot produce a good harvest of grain. There must certainly be fertile fields, good seeds, favorable seasons, and all the necessary conditions of farming before a harvest can be obtained.

Furthermore, it is not merely through empty wishing that the body gains strength; one must take nourishing medicines, eat wholesome and nutritious foods, and fulfill all the requisite conditions before strength can be gained. Likewise, it is not merely through empty wishing that one can exhaust the outflows; one must possess true wisdom before liberation can be attained. How could a wise person, knowing that an effect arises from a cause, abandon the cause and pursue fantasies in search of the effect?

Moreover, the fruits of cultivating the Dharma can be seen in the present. As the Buddha said in the sutra: “There is no need to wait seven days. I teach my disciples that, after cultivating wholesome dharmas for even a brief moment, they will continually enjoy happiness throughout many lives.” Again, the bhiksunis said to Ananda: “Venerable Sir!

Through skillfully cultivating the foundations of mindfulness, we sisters know from experience that we are different from when we first began.” Again, in a sutra the Buddha told the bhiksus: “If someone without a deceitful mind comes to me, I shall teach him the Dharma in the morning and enable him to gain benefit by evening; if I teach him the Dharma in the evening, I shall enable him to gain benefit by morning.” Moreover, when someone attains the path of arhatship, it is not attained jointly with another person, nor jointly with a nonhuman being.

It is solely through cultivating the correct causes that one gains this benefit. Even the unsurpassed Buddha-path can be realized only by accumulating and cultivating wholesome dharmas—how much more so other matters! As the Buddha told the bhiksus in a sutra: “By relying upon two dharmas, I attained the unsurpassed path: first, delighting tirelessly in cultivation; and second, cultivating the path without weariness.” The Buddha’s cultivation of wholesome dharmas was utterly immeasurable.

Moreover, although bodhisattvas may not yet attain concentration, they do not grow indolent or weary. Why is this? Because if they do not perform wholesome deeds, they will gain nothing at all.

Yet when they perform wholesome deeds, they do not boast of them to one another. Those who do not perform wholesome deeds will certainly find no peace. Having reflected in this way, they diligently and vigorously cultivate wholesome dharmas.

One who arouses a mind of vigorous effort may either attain or fail to attain; but one who makes no vigorous effort has no hope whatsoever. Therefore, one should diligently cultivate and not give rise to indolence.

Moreover, a wise person must ultimately attain liberation. If the Dharma of cultivation is abandoned, there is no other means. Therefore, the wise should cultivate diligently and not give rise to indolence.

Furthermore, the practitioner reflects that the correct practice will certainly bear fruit; although the fruit has not yet been attained, one does not become distressed. The practitioner should also reflect: “How could I fail to obtain the fruit of cultivation? Since beginningless time, sentient beings have attained all forms of meditative concentration.

Now that I am cultivating correctly, I too shall certainly attain them.” Thus, one does not become indolent. Furthermore, the Buddha bears witness to this correct practice: “Since I now practice correctly, I should know that I shall certainly attain the result.” Moreover, I fully possess the causes and conditions for attaining the path: I have obtained a human body, my faculties are complete, I clearly understand transgression and merit, I also believe in liberation, and I have encountered spiritual friends.

Having all these fortunate conditions, how could my cultivation fail to bear fruit? Furthermore, correct practice and vigorous effort are never expended in vain; therefore, one does not become weary. Moreover, the gradual wearing away and cessation of the afflictions is difficult to perceive, like the handle of an axe being gradually worn away until it is gone.

My afflictions too must be wearing away and ceasing, but because this process is subtle, it cannot be fully perceived. Thus, one should know that vigorous cultivation of the wholesome is supreme. Furthermore, even a little wisdom can dispel darkness.

In this way, once even a little wisdom is attained, the task is accomplished; therefore, one does not become weary. Furthermore, what takes a long time and is difficult to accomplish is the attainment of concentration. Once concentration has been attained, the other tasks do not take long.

Therefore, although it may not be attained quickly, one should certainly not become weary. The practitioner should also reflect that concentration is extremely difficult to attain: “The bodhisattva of old possessed profound and abundant merit and wisdom, yet he had to strive diligently for six years before attaining realization! Even for bhiksus, attaining concentration is difficult.

How then could we ordinary beings, of little merit, dull faculties, and shallow wisdom, attain it quickly?” Having reflected in this way, one does not become weary. Moreover, cultivating concentration is indispensable for all practitioners; there is no other undertaking more important. Therefore, whether it is attained or not, it must still be cultivated.

Furthermore, although one who cultivates may not attain concentration, that person is nevertheless said to have attained bodily seclusion. Once bodily seclusion has been attained, concentration is easily attained. Moreover, through concentration one does not forsake the Buddha’s kindness.

It is also only by cultivating the practice of seclusion that one earns the designation “practitioner.”

Furthermore, when wholesome dharmas have been cultivated for a long time, they become one’s wholesome nature. Even after one passes into another body, those wholesome dharmas continue to accompany one. Thus, one will continually encounter devas and human beings; this is a great benefit.

Moreover, one who constantly cultivates the wholesome may certainly exhaust the outflows in this very body; or may exhaust them at the very moment of death; or, after death, may be born by transformation in a heavenly realm and exhaust them there, as explained in the section on the benefits of the Dharma. Furthermore, a sign of heroic resolve arises in the practitioner’s mind, and one thinks: “If I cannot defeat this army of afflictions, I shall certainly not return empty-handed.” Moreover, relying upon a sense of self-confidence, the practitioner gives rise to this thought: “Others possess faith and the other wholesome faculties and are therefore able to attain concentration.

Since I too possess them, why should I fail to attain it?” Thus, when the bodhisattva of old was studying the Dharma under the sage Arada and others, he gave rise to this thought: “This person possesses faith and the other wholesome faculties, and therefore is able to attain this Dharma. I too possess them, so why should I fail to attain it?” Furthermore, the practitioner knows that the power of the afflictions is weak, while the power of wisdom is strong; what difficulty could there be in destroying them?

As it is said, if a bhiksu perfects six dharmas, he could blow away the Snow Mountains with the wind of his mouth—how much more could he destroy the lifeless thing called ignorance! Furthermore, the practitioner gives rise to this thought: “Because I did not cultivate concentration in previous lives, I am unable to attain it now. If I do not diligently cultivate it now, I shall likewise fail to attain it in the future.

Therefore, I must cultivate diligently.” Moreover, through constantly cultivating concentration, the mind gains an abiding place, just as a rolling vessel that does not stop must eventually come to rest somewhere. Furthermore, the practitioner gives rise to this thought: “If I constantly arouse vigorous effort, whether I attain the goal or fail to attain it, I shall not later feel remorse.” Therefore, one should single-mindedly and diligently cultivate the concentrations.

CHAPTER ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WISDOM, WITHIN THE TREATISE ON WISDOM IN THE GROUP OF THE TRUTH OF THE PATH, CHAPTER 189

True prajna is called wisdom. “True” means emptiness and non-self. The prajna therein is called true wisdom; the discernment applied to conventional designations is perception, not wisdom. Why is this? Because a sutra says: “It is like a knife that can cut.” The Buddha’s disciples use the knife of prajna to cut through all the knots, bonds, compulsions, and fetters of the afflictions; no other dharma is said to do so. That which is not true cannot sever the afflictions. Therefore, one should know that prajna is true.

Question: You merely say that it can sever the afflictions, but this is unreasonable. Why? Because perception can also sever the afflictions. As a sutra says: “When the perception of impermanence is skillfully cultivated, can it not destroy attachment to the desire realm, attachment to the form realm, attachment to the formless realm, all frivolous elaboration, arrogance, and ignorance?”

Answer: That is not so. It is wisdom that actually cuts off the afflictions; the term “perception” is merely used to designate it. The Buddha has two modes of speech: first, speech in accordance with reality; second, nominal speech.

As a sutra says: “A mind of loving-kindness puts an end to anger.” Yet in reality it is not the dharma of loving-kindness that cuts off the fetter; only knowledge can cut it off. Thus it is said that the blade of knowledge cuts off the afflictions. Therefore, one should know that the statement “loving-kindness can put an end to anger” is nominal speech.

Moreover, the sutras explain that understanding is called wisdom. What does it understand? It knows form, which is impermanent, as it truly is—impermanent; it knows feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, which are impermanent, as they truly are—impermanent.

This is wisdom. It is also said that a disciple of the Buddha, cultivating concentration and collecting the mind, sees and knows things as they truly are. Therefore, one should know that knowledge whose object is the ultimate truth is called wisdom.

Furthermore, in similes, wisdom is called the eye of knowledge, the blade of wisdom, the arrow, and so forth. All these similes clearly express the meaning of eliminating the afflictions: only true wisdom can cut off the afflictions. Therefore, one should know that wisdom is real.

Moreover, a verse says: Practitioners see that all devas and humans in the world, having lost true knowledge, greedily cling to name and form. Most beings in the world grasp what is false as permanent, pleasurable, pure, and so forth; this is called losing true knowledge. Seeing the true emptiness, non-self, and so forth is called attaining true knowledge.

Therefore, one should know that wisdom is real. Furthermore, in a sutra the Buddha said: “When a person loses wealth, it is called the loss of a minor benefit. When one loses wisdom, it is called the loss of a great benefit.” He also said: “Among all gains, material gain is insignificant; wisdom is great.” He also said: “Among all lights, the light of the sun and moon is small; the light of wisdom is foremost.” If wisdom were not real, why would the Buddha have spoken in this way?

Moreover, a sutra says that the faculty of wisdom is included within the Noble Truths. It is also said that knowledge of suffering, its origin, and so forth must be known as real; in the first fascicle, this is called wisdom. It is also said that among all dharmas, wisdom is supreme.

There are also the expressions “unsurpassed complete and perfect enlightenment” and “the eye of wisdom.” Therefore, one should know that wisdom is real, because its object is the ultimate truth.

Question: If that is so, then is there no worldly wisdom?

Answer: In truth, there is no worldly wisdom. How is this known? Because the worldly mind takes nominal designations as its objects, whereas only the supramundane mind takes emptiness and non-self as its objects. Why is this so? Because the world consists of nominal designations, and transcending nominal designations is called supramundane.

Question: What you say is not correct. Why? Because a sutra says: “What does consciousness cognize?

It cognizes form, sound, odor, taste, tangible objects, and dharmas.” Thus the skandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, and so forth are all cognized by consciousness. According to you, all such cognition should therefore be called supramundane. Hence, your statement that the worldly mind takes only nominal designations as its objects and cannot take realities as its objects is not correct.

Moreover, mental consciousness can also take realities as its objects, because it can take feeling, perception, formations, and so forth as its objects. Furthermore, the Buddha taught two kinds of right view: worldly and supramundane. Seeing that merit, wrongdoing, and so forth exist is called worldly right view.

The wisdom associated with the undefiled mindfulness by which a noble disciple takes suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path as objects is called supramundane right view. Moreover, a verse says: One who attains right view in the world, though repeatedly passing through birth and death for hundreds of thousands of lifetimes, will never fall into an evil realm. Furthermore, a sutra says: “One who has practiced wrongly may be born in a fortunate realm.” Although this person’s evil karma has not yet ripened, because a wholesome object comes foremost, or because at the moment of death a wholesome mind associated with right view becomes present, that person is born in a fortunate realm.

Right view is also taught among the ten wholesome courses of action. How, then, can you say there is no worldly knowledge? Furthermore, the Buddha himself taught three kinds of wisdom: wisdom born of hearing, wisdom born of reflection, and wisdom born of cultivation.

The wisdoms born of hearing and reflection are both worldly, while the wisdom born of cultivation includes both worldly and supramundane wisdom. Moreover, the Buddha thought: The bhikshu Rahula is not yet able to perfect the wisdom of liberation. It is also said that there are five dharmas capable of bringing to maturity a mind not yet mature enough for liberation.

All these are worldly wisdom. Furthermore, a sutra says: “There is one who can emerge but cannot look; there is one who can look but cannot cross over.” Attaining worldly knowledge is called being able to emerge; not yet seeing the Four Noble Truths is called being unable to look. Seeing the Four Noble Truths but not yet exhausting the outflows is called being unable to cross over.

Furthermore, the Buddha himself taught knowledge of dharmas, inferential knowledge, knowledge of others’ minds, and worldly knowledge. He also taught knowledge of past lives and knowledge of birth and death. All these are with outflows.

He also taught knowledge of the abiding nature of dharmas and knowledge of nirvana. Since the sutras contain such teachings, how could one not know that knowledge with outflows exists?

Answer: If wisdom with outflows exists, you must now explain the distinguishing characteristics of knowledge with outflows and knowledge without outflows.

Question: A dharma that “falls within existence” is called with outflows; one that is otherwise is without outflows.

Answer: Which dharmas “fall within existence,” and which do not? You must answer this. If you cannot answer, then this is not a characteristic that distinguishes what is with outflows from what is without outflows.

You say that there are worldly minds that take as their objects things that are not nominal designations, such as consciousness taking sensory objects and so forth as its objects. This is not correct. Why?

Because the Buddha said that ordinary beings constantly follow nominal designations. This means that, because none of the minds of ordinary beings can break through nominal designations, they constantly follow the characteristic of self and are ultimately unable to separate from it. Although they see form, they cannot separate it from such characteristics as that of a jar.

Therefore, the minds of ordinary beings cannot take the real meaning as their object. Even when they take dharmas such as feeling and perception as their objects, they still regard them as self and belonging to self. Therefore, one should know that all worldly minds take nominal designations as their objects.

You say that worldly wisdoms exist, such as the two kinds of right view and so forth. I shall now answer: There are two kinds of mind—the deluded mind and the knowing mind. A mind that takes dharmas that are nominal designations as its objects is called a deluded mind.

A mind that takes only true dharmas—namely emptiness and non-self—as its objects is called a knowing mind. As a sutra says in explaining the meaning of ignorance: “Ignorance means not knowing the past, not knowing the future, and not knowing both past and future; not knowing karma, not knowing its result, and not knowing the past and future of karma and its result. In this way, in each and every respect, one does not know or understand things as they truly are, but is deluded and enveloped in darkness; therefore, it is called ignorance.” Not knowing things as they truly are means not knowing emptiness and non-self.

Because the mind of an ordinary being constantly abides among nominal designations and takes nominal designations as its objects, it is called ignorance. Taking emptiness as one’s object is called knowledge. Now, if all worldly minds take nominal designations as their objects, and a mind that takes nominal designations as its objects is called ignorance, how can it be said that wisdom exists in the world?

Question: You say that the characteristic of wisdom is that taking nominal designations as objects is called ignorance. We now see that arhats should therefore possess ignorance, because they too have minds that take jars and so forth as their objects.

Answer: Arhats have no minds that take jars and so forth as their objects. Why? Because when they first attained the Path, they had already shattered all the characteristics of nominal designations.

They speak of jars and so forth only for practical purposes, without clinging to them or giving rise to conceit. There are three kinds of speech: first, speech arising from views; second, speech arising from conceit; third, speech arising from practical usage. When ordinary beings speak of a jar or a person, all such speech arises from views.

Although trainees no longer possess the view of self, because they lose right mindfulness, they speak as described in the Khema Sutra. As for practical usage: when the arhat Mahakasyapa saw a sanghati robe, he said, “This is mine.” A deity became doubtful. The Buddha explained: “That person has completely uprooted conceit and utterly burned away its causes and conditions; how could he possess conceit?

He spoke in that way only in accordance with worldly terminology.” Therefore, one should know that arhats have no minds that take jars and so forth as their objects.

Question: If there is no worldly wisdom, how are the teachings concerning the two kinds of right view and so forth to be reconciled with the sutras?

Answer: All these are perceptions spoken of under the name of wisdom. The Buddha is able to penetrate the true characteristics of all dharmas; according to what is capable of bringing sentient beings to liberation, he establishes many different names. Thus wisdom is spoken of under the names of feeling and the like, as when it is said that one who experiences feeling attains liberation with respect to all dharmas.

It is also said that one who skillfully cultivates the perceptions of impermanence and the like is able to destroy all afflictions. It is also said that the fourth kind of karma, which is neither black nor white, is able to bring all karma to an end; this refers to the volition of one in training. Again, it is said that by means of the mind one severs all attachments.

It is also said that faith enables one to cross the river, and one-pointedness enables one to cross the sea; diligence removes suffering, and wisdom enables purification. Again, it is said that the eye desires to see forms. In truth, the eye does not desire; only the mind desires to see, but this is spoken of under the name of the eye.

Question: If worldly wisdom is in fact perception, why is it called wisdom? If it is called wisdom without reason, then all perceptions should be called wisdom. It should also be said that there are two kinds of perception: one that takes conventional truth as its object, and one that takes ultimate truth as its object.

Answer: That is not so. Perception has many different varieties. There is perception so extremely deluded that it does not even distinguish good from evil.

There is perception that is somewhat less deluded and is able to take such characteristics as bones as its object. So long as it does not depart from provisional designation, it cannot destroy the conception of the skandhas. Because this perception accords with the wisdom that destroys the conception of the skandhas, the Buddha calls it wisdom.

In the world, there are expressions in which the result is spoken of in terms of its cause, such as: consuming gold; giving a person five things; a woman defiling the precepts; a good bank and a beautiful channel; Dharma robes delighting a person. Again, in the Sutra on the Seven Outflows, it is said: “The causes of the outflows, which are severed through application and the like, are called outflows.” It is also said that food is life and grass is cattle and sheep.

Likewise, clothing, food, and other possessions are all called external life. Thus, to rob someone of their possessions is to rob them of their life. In all these cases, the cause is spoken of as the result.

In the same way, the cause of wisdom is spoken of as wisdom; therefore, there is no fault.

Question: In the foundations of mindfulness within the Dharma of Warmth and the like, is the mind that is able to take real dharmas as its object undefiled?

Answer: An undefiled mind is able to destroy provisional designations. Therefore, whenever the mind is able to destroy provisional designations, from that point onward it is called undefiled.

Question: At what stage is the mind able to destroy provisional designations?

Answer: Whenever one is able to see fully the characteristics of the arising and cessation of the five skandhas, one then acquires the perception of impermanence. The perception of impermanence enables the practitioner to perfect the perception of non-self. As it is said: When a noble disciple cultivates the mind by means of the perception of impermanence, they are able to abide in the perception of non-self; when they cultivate the mind by means of the perception of non-self, they are able swiftly to attain liberation from greed, anger, delusion, and the like.

Why is this? If one cultivates the mind by means of the perception of non-self, one is able to abide in the perception of suffering. Because of the perception of self, even when one undergoes suffering, one does not recognize it.

Therefore, if a dharma is impermanent, without self, and also suffering, a wise person can develop profound revulsion toward it. Thus, the perception of non-self is able to perfect the perception of suffering.

Question: Why do you contradict the stated sequence? The sutra says: “What is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering is non-self.” Therefore, the perception of impermanence is able to perfect the perception of suffering, and the perception of suffering is able to perfect the perception of non-self.

Answer: The sutra says: “By cultivating the perception of impermanence, the mind of a noble disciple is able to cultivate the perception of non-self.” Therefore, the perception of impermanence is able to perfect the perception of non-self. Moreover, this statement is also reasonable. Why is this? Those who assert a self wish thereby to establish a future life, and so they claim that the self is permanent. Therefore, if one sees that the five skandhas are impermanent, one immediately knows that there is no self. As the sutra says: “If someone says that the eye is the self, this is unreasonable.” Why is this? Because the eye arises and ceases. If the eye were the self, would the self arise and cease? There would be such faults as these.

Question: How should these two sutras be explained so that they are consistent?

Answer: The characteristic of suffering is of two kinds: first, that which arises from the perception of impermanence, called the characteristic of the suffering of disintegration; second, that which arises from the perception of non-self, called the characteristic of the suffering of conditioned formations. Therefore, these two sutras do not contradict each other.

Question: If this is so, then the foundations of mindfulness within the Dharma of Warmth and the like contain the perception of impermanence; should all these dharmas therefore be undefiled?

Answer: If the foundations of mindfulness and the like are undefiled, what fault is there?

Question: The mind of an ordinary person should not be undefiled. Since the mind of an ordinary person still has false foundations of mindfulness and the like, how could it be undefiled?

Answer: This person is not entirely an ordinary person. Such a person is called one who is practicing toward stream-entry.

Question: One practicing toward the fruit of stream-entry is within the path of seeing the truths. The foundation of mindfulness of dharmas and the like are not called the seeing of the truths.

Answer: Practice toward the fruit of stream-entry may be proximate or remote. Abiding in the foundations of mindfulness and the like is remote; the practitioner who sees the truths is proximate. How is this known?

In the sutra containing the simile of the axe handle, the Buddha said: “By knowing and seeing, one attains the exhaustion of the outflows.” What dharmas are known and seen? They are: such are form and the rest; such is the arising of form and the rest; such is the cessation of form and the rest. If one does not cultivate the Path, one cannot exhaust the outflows; but if one cultivates it, one attains their exhaustion, as in the simile of incubating eggs.

Again, when a practitioner constantly cultivates the factors of the Path, the afflictions gradually wear away and are exhausted. Although one cannot calculate or know their degree of exhaustion, one recognizes it once they have ended, as in the simile of the axe handle. Again, when a practitioner constantly cultivates the thirty-seven factors aiding the Path, desire, bonds, knots, and fetters will, at the proper time, readily break apart, as in the simile of the seagoing vessel.

Therefore, one should know that all who, beginning with the foundations of mindfulness, cultivate the factors of the Path are called practitioners toward the first fruit. Moreover, if cultivation could not be accomplished within one thought-moment or fifteen thought-moments, one should know that these are practitioners remotely cultivating toward stream-entry.

Question: The earlier statement—“such are form and the rest; such is the arising of form and the rest; such is the cessation of form and the rest”—concerns the path to the first fruit, while the following three similes illustrate the three subsequent fruits. Therefore, such a person should not be called one practicing toward the first fruit.

Answer: If eggs are not incubated, they spoil; through incubation they are brought to maturity. In the same way, cultivation of the Dharma begins with the foundations of mindfulness. If it is not brought to maturity, it is not called practice; but one capable of practicing is a person in training, who is said to be unspoiled because they are able to receive and bear the Dharma.

Therefore, one who fails in the foundations of mindfulness and the like is called an ordinary person. One who brings their cultivation to maturity is called a practitioner toward the first fruit. It is like still being within the eggshell; when one emerges from the shell, one is called a stream-enterer.

Thus, one should know that one who still remains within the foundations of mindfulness and the like is called a remote practitioner. Furthermore, when the householder Ugga made offerings to the Sangha, a deity introduced the members, saying: “This one is an arhat,” and so on, down to, “This one is a practitioner toward the first fruit.” If this designation applied only to one within the path of seeing the truths, how could only this much have been attained?

Therefore, one should know that this refers to a remote practitioner. Again, in a sutra the Buddha said: “If a person does not possess the five faculties beginning with faith, that person is said still to remain among external ordinary persons.” This statement indicates that there are two kinds of ordinary persons: internal and external. One who has not attained the wholesome roots conducive to penetration is called an external ordinary person, while one who has attained them is called an internal ordinary person.

This internal ordinary person is also called a noble person and is also called an ordinary person. In contrast with an external ordinary person, they are called a noble person; in relation to the path of seeing the truths, they are called an ordinary person. Thus Ananda said to Channa: “An ordinary person is unable to contemplate that form is empty and without self; that feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are empty and without self; that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent; that all dharmas are without self; and that cessation is nirvana.” At that time Channa had not yet entered the certainty of the Dharma, and so it was said that an ordinary person is unable to contemplate these things.

Question: If both the proximate and the remote are called practitioners, what distinction is there between them?

Answer: One who sees the truth of cessation is called a true practitioner. One who still abides among the remote wholesome roots sees that the five skandhas are impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self. Answer: Conditioned by the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises, and together with it arise feeling, perception, volition, and the like.

All these dharmas are impermanent and subject to decay; they cannot be trusted or relied upon. If a dharma is impermanent, it is suffering. The arising of this suffering is itself suffering, its abiding is suffering, and its constant departure from its characteristics is also suffering.

The same applies through to the mind and mental objects. If this suffering ceases, other sufferings do not arise and no longer continue in succession. The practitioner thinks: “That state is subtle and wondrous quiescence: the abandonment of all falsity, the complete cessation of craving, detachment, quiescence, and nirvana.”

If, with regard to this Dharma, the mind enters into faithful understanding, without wavering or agitation, without anxiety or fear, only from this point onward is it called seeing the Dharma. Therefore, it should be known that if a practitioner uses such contemplations as impermanence to observe and see the five skandhas, that person is called a practitioner who is still far away. If one sees the Truth of Cessation, one is called a practitioner who has drawn near.

Thus Channa replied to the elders: “I too am able to contemplate form and the rest as impermanent, but regarding the complete cessation of all formations and nirvana, my mind is unable to enter into penetrating faithful understanding.” From this it should be known that such a one is not yet said to have seen the Dharma. It is also said that if, with regard to this Dharma, a practitioner possesses acceptance through faith by means of gentle wisdom, that person is called a faith-follower.

Having passed beyond the stage of an ordinary person and entered the fixed state of the true Dharma, one will certainly attain the first fruit and will assuredly not die prematurely. If one possesses acceptance through faith by means of keen wisdom, one is called a Dharma-follower. Having seen this Dharma, one is able to sever the three fetters and is called a stream-enterer.

One who has fully understood everything, with nothing remaining, is called an arhat. Therefore, it should be known that seeing cessation is called being a practitioner who has drawn near. Question: Why do practitioners not all see cessation?

Answer: A sutra says: “All formations are without intrinsic nature and arise through many causes and conditions. This Dharma is extremely profound. The exhaustion of all craving, quiescence, and nirvana—this state is difficult to see!” The Buddha contemplated the cessation of the twelve links of dependent origination and thereby realized the unsurpassed Way.

Moreover, the Seal of the Dharma says: “If a practitioner contemplates the five skandhas as impermanent, subject to destruction, false, and unstable, this is also called emptiness; yet such knowledge and vision are still said to be impure.” Later, this sutra says that the practitioner gives rise to this thought: “Whatever I see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or cognize—consciousness arises through these causes and conditions.

Is that conditioned consciousness permanent or impermanent?” One immediately knows that it is impermanent. If consciousness arises from impermanent causes and conditions, how could it be permanent? Therefore, one sees that all five skandhas are impermanent, arise through many conditions, and possess the characteristics of exhaustion, separation, and cessation.

Only then do the practitioner’s knowledge and vision become pure. Therefore, it should be known that seeing cessation is called seeing the Noble Truth. Moreover, knowledge of the stability of phenomena comes first, and knowledge of nirvana afterward.

Thus, seeing the Truth of Cessation is called attaining the Noble Way.

CHAPTER 190: SEEING ONE TRUTH

Question: You say that only one who sees the Truth of Cessation is called a practitioner who has attained the fruit. This is unreasonable. Why? In a sutra, the Buddha said: “Because you and I were unable to see the Four Truths as they really are, we remained for a long time in samsara. Now, by seeing these Four Truths, the causes and conditions for embodiment are severed, the characteristics of samsara are brought to an end, and no further body will be received.” Therefore, it should be known that only one who sees the Four Truths is called a practitioner who has attained the fruit, not one who sees only the Truth of Cessation. Furthermore, the Buddha spoke of “supreme cessation,” referring to the Four Truths. Therefore, a practitioner must see and know all of them.

It is also said: “All who put on the Dharma robe, alter their appearance, and leave the household life with right faith do so for the purpose of seeing the Four Truths.” If people wish first to attain the three fruits of the Way, they all do so for the purpose of seeing the Four Truths.” If people wish first to attain the three fruits of the Way, they all do so for the purpose of seeing the Four Truths. Those who attain the Buddha Way—arhats and pratyekabuddhas—have all seen the Four Truths.

Therefore, it should be known that one does not see only the Truth of Cessation. Moreover, the Buddha himself said: “The Four Truths are realized in sequence.” Again, in the Sutra on Turning the Wheel of Dharma, he said: “I contemplated: this is suffering; this is the cause of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; and this is the path to the cessation of suffering.” Only then did vision, knowledge, illumination, and awakening arise concerning them.

In each of the three turnings, the Four Truths were taught. Again, a sutra says: “Just as a new, clean white cloth, when immersed in dye, immediately takes on the color, so too this person, in a single sitting, sees the Four Noble Truths.” It is also said: “When the practitioner’s mind is pure, one rightly contemplates the Truth of Suffering through to the Truth of the Path and thereby sees them. Then the mind is liberated from the taint of sensual desire, the taint of existence, and the taint of ignorance.” Furthermore, wherever the Noble Truths are discussed in the sutras, all four truths are taught, not merely cessation.

Moreover, the Buddha taught four knowledges: knowledge of suffering, knowledge of its origin, knowledge of its cessation, and knowledge of the path; all pertain to the Four Truths. Furthermore, the practitioner must see all Four Truths, just as a skilled physician must know the illness, the cause of the illness, the cure of the illness, and the medicine that cures it. In the same way, a practitioner who wishes to be liberated from all suffering must know suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path to the cessation of suffering.

If one does not know suffering, how could one know its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation? Therefore, it should be known that one does not see only the Truth of Cessation.

Answer: Some teachings explain all Four Noble Truths in terms of the skandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, and so forth. That is, by knowing form and the rest, and the arising and cessation of form and the rest, one brings the taints to an end. The Buddha himself also said: “So long as I did not know as they truly are the gratification, danger, escape, and freedom with regard to the skandha of form and the rest, I did not claim to have attained the unsurpassed Way.” When he knew them as they truly are, he knew for himself that he had attained the Way.

Again, in the Sutra of the Parable of the City, it is said: “So long as I did not know aging and death, the arising of aging and death, the cessation of aging and death, and the path to the cessation of aging and death; and likewise formations, the arising of formations, the cessation of formations, and the path to the cessation of formations, I did not claim to have attained the unsurpassed Way.” When he knew them as they truly are, he declared that he had attained Buddhahood.

If seeing these and similar things constitutes seeing the Way, then the sixteen states of mind could not be called the attainment of the Way.

Question: I do not say that reflecting on these things is called seeing and attaining the Way.

Answer: The same is also said concerning the Four Truths. They too may be said to be objects of reflection. If this is not so, then you must explain why seeing the Four Truths is called attaining the Way, whereas seeing the five skandhas and the rest is called mere reflection.

Question: The knowledge that severs the afflictions is called attaining the Way; reflecting on the five skandhas and the rest does not sever the afflictions.

Answer: I have already said that knowledge of the five skandhas and the rest also severs the afflictions, as it is said that by seeing and knowing form and the rest, one brings the taints to an end. It is also said that by seeing the arising of the world, one eliminates the view of nonexistence, and by seeing the cessation of the world, one eliminates the view of existence. Moreover, the Buddha himself contemplated causes and conditions and attained the Way.

Some contemplate the five skandhas and attain the Way; others contemplate the twelve ayatanas, the eighteen dhatus, the twelve links of dependent origination, and so forth, and attain the Way. Therefore, it should be known that the Way is not attained solely through the Four Truths. If you maintain that, although such teachings exist, contemplation of these things cannot sever the afflictions, then others could likewise say that even contemplation of the Four Truths does not sever the afflictions.

Moreover, the Way can be attained only by relying upon ultimate truth. Yet the explanation of the Four Truths says: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering, meeting those one hates is suffering, separation from those one loves is suffering, and not obtaining what one seeks is suffering. In brief, the five skandhas are suffering.

It also says that the cause of suffering is craving, which constantly clings to delight and causes one to take birth in various places. If contemplating these and similar things does not bring the taints to an end, then all of these belong to conventional truth and are not the ultimate meaning.

Question: Although one contemplates birth, death, and the rest, one does not bring the taints to an end. But when it is stated in brief that all five skandhas are suffering, a wise person can thereby destroy the afflictions.

Answer: What, then, of the other three truths? It should be known that this is merely a distinction fabricated by your own conceptual thought. Moreover, if one contemplates that all five skandhas are suffering with a distracted mind, one does not attain the Way.

Question: If the Way is not attained through the Four Truths, then through what Dharma is the Way attained?

Answer: It is by means of the one Truth called Cessation that the Path is attained. As the sutra says, “Delusion is false and deceptive; what is taken as real is called inverted.” All conditioned dharmas are falsely and erroneously apprehended. Therefore, it should be known that whatever the practitioner’s mind follows among conditioned dharmas is not genuine reality.

As the sutra says, “Conditioned dharmas deceive like illusions, dreams, borrowed things, and so forth.” As the Dhammapada says: “Falsehood binds the world, seeming as though it were solid and real. What is unreal is seen as real; examined closely, it is all nonexistent.” In reality, there are no dharmas of male and female; it is only the conjunction of the five skandhas that is conventionally called male or female. Ordinary people, being confused, suppose these truly exist.

The practitioner contemplates those five skandhas as empty and without self, and consequently no longer perceives them as such. As the Sutra of the Dharma Seal says: “The practitioner contemplates form as impermanent, empty, and free from characteristics.” Impermanent means that the essential nature of form is impermanent. Empty means, for example, that when a jar contains no water, it is called an empty jar.

Likewise, because there is no spirit-self within the five skandhas, they are called empty. One who contemplates in this way is also said to contemplate emptiness, yet is also said to possess knowledge and vision that are not yet purified, because one is not yet able to see the cessation of the five skandhas. Only afterward does one see cessation, namely by forming this thought: All those things that I have seen, heard, and so forth—one should know that only upon seeing their cessation are all afflictions completely ended.

Question: Why are the afflictions ended only upon seeing the Truth of Cessation and not the other Truths?

Answer: At that time, the practitioner has become firmly established in the perception of suffering. If one has not yet realized the characteristic of cessation, one’s mind is not yet firmly resolved regarding the suffering of conditioned dharmas. It is like a person who has not yet attained the joy and happiness of the first dhyana and therefore does not give rise to the perception of disenchantment toward the five sensual desires.

It is also like one who has not yet attained concentration free from initial and sustained thought and therefore does not regard concentration accompanied by initial and sustained thought as burdensome. The practitioner is likewise: before realizing the characteristic of the quiescent nirvana, one does not comprehend the suffering of conditioned existence. Therefore, only upon knowing and seeing the Truth of Cessation is the perception of suffering made complete.

Only when the perception of suffering is complete can craving and the other fetters be ended.

Question: If seeing the Truth of Cessation completes the perception of suffering, then the afflictions should be ended only after the Truth of Cessation has been fully apprehended. Why? Because only after seeing the Truth of Cessation is the perception of suffering complete.

Answer: They are not ended at a later time. As soon as one apprehends the characteristic of quiescence within Cessation, the perception of suffering is complete; afterward, this must become manifest before one. As the sutra says: “When the practitioner apprehends the characteristic of arising with regard to Origination and the characteristic of exhaustion and cessation through knowledge of dharmas, the pure Dharma-eye arises with regard to those very dharmas.” Furthermore, a person may know the skandhas to be impermanent, suffering, and so forth, yet still not have completely eliminated attachment to them. If one sees the Truth of Cessation, then through signlessness the mind that clings to self is completely extinguished.

Question: If seeing the Truth of Cessation ends the mind that clings to self, why did the Buddha, after observing that those suited to receive the teaching had gentle and receptive minds and so forth, teach them the Four Truths rather than teaching only Cessation?

Answer: Within these are practices conducive to the Path. Those who, through fully developing the perceptions of impermanence and non-self, attain this contemplation of suffering are near to the Path. Therefore, they are taught together.

Question: If the attainment of the Path ends personality-view, why do attachment to precepts and observances and doubt still remain?

Answer: When the practitioner attains the Path, one directly perceives all dharmas as empty and without self, and consequently no longer has doubt. One is no longer like ordinary people who depend upon hearing, reflection, contemplation, and so forth. Upon seeing the Truth of the Path, one knows that this alone is the one reality and that there is no other path superior to it. Therefore, these three are mentioned.

Question: If, upon attaining the Path and seeing the Truths, all afflictions are ended, why is it said that only three fetters are ended?

Answer: All afflictions take personality-view as their root. The Buddha asked a bhiksu: “Because of what, and upon seeing what, do you give rise to such a view as this: Only this body exists, and when it dies it is utterly annihilated—and to all such views?” The bhiksu said to the Buddha: “The Buddha is the Dharma King! I beseech you to explain this.” The Buddha said: “It is because of form and because, with regard to form, you see form as the self that you give rise to this view.

The same applies all the way through consciousness.” Thus, it should be known that the various afflictions arise because of the view of self. Why? If there is personality-view, one declares of this self: it is either permanent or impermanent.

If one definitively views it as permanent, that is the view of eternalism; if one definitively views it as impermanent, that is the view of annihilationism. If the self is permanent, then there is no karma, no retribution, and no liberation from suffering. If the self is impermanent, there is likewise no karmic retribution and no liberation from suffering, because there would be no need to cultivate the Path in order to enter nirvana.

If one regards this view as supreme, that is attachment to views; if one maintains that it can bring liberation, that is attachment to precepts and observances. Cherishing and clinging to oneself, condemning and clinging to others, and becoming conceited on the basis of such attachments constitute pride. Because one does not know things as they truly are, this fetter arises; this is ignorance.

Therefore, only by ending personality-view does one see the Truths and end the fetters.

Question: If, when personality-view is ended, the other fetters are also ended along with it, why is it necessary to mention attachment to precepts and observances and doubt separately?

Answer: Because they are predominant. When the practitioner directly perceives the characteristics of dharmas, there is no doubt. This doubt concerns whether the self exists or does not exist.

It also concerns whether this Path can bring purification. When one sees the Truth of Suffering, the view of self is ended. One also knows that there is only this one Path and no other path.

Therefore, it is said that ending personality-view is truly seeing suffering. Because attachment to precepts and observances is ended, this is called cultivating the Path. There is no doubt regarding either the dharma that knows or the dharma that is known.

By correct knowledge, one knows the dharma that is to be known, thereby ending Origination and realizing Cessation; this is called fulfilling the Four Truths. Thus, these three dharmas are mentioned to clarify the characteristic of freedom from doubt. This doubt arises from attachment to self and the path.

As the sutra says: “At first one attains the characteristic of the Path.” This means seeing the Dharma, attaining the Dharma, knowing the Dharma, comprehending the Dharma, passing beyond all nets of doubt, no longer following the teachings of others, attaining the power of fearlessness within the Buddha-Dharma, and abiding in the fruit.

CHAPTER 191: ALL OBJECTS OF COGNITION

Question: What knowledge is capable of taking everything as its object?

Answer: Knowledge that takes the dhatus, ayatanas, and so forth as its objects is called knowledge that cognizes everything. Why? Because, as is said, such dharmas as the ayatanas and dhatus, entities, the various conditions, sense objects, faculties of cognition, and so forth encompass all dharmas. Knowledge capable of cognizing these is therefore called knowledge that cognizes everything.

Question: Does this knowledge not know the associated dharmas that arise together with it?

Answer: It can know them. For example, when it takes the ayatanas and so forth as its objects, it is called knowledge of general characteristics. Because it is knowledge of general characteristics, it is capable of cognizing everything. Why? Because when the twelve ayatanas are spoken of, no dharma remains outside them. Therefore, it should be known that this knowledge also takes its own substance as an object.

Question: The sutra says, “Consciousness arises from two causes and conditions.” Therefore, there cannot be knowledge that takes itself as its own object. Furthermore, in the case of knowledge, there is no causal analogy demonstrating that it can take its own substance as an object, just as a fingertip cannot touch itself and the eye cannot see itself.

Answer: Your assertion that consciousness arises from two causes and conditions is not universally fixed. There is also knowledge that does not arise from such causes and conditions; it is not the case that all knowledge arises from two causes and conditions. Furthermore, if the sixth consciousness has no object among the skandhas belonging to itself, then, because no presently existing dharma is available as its object, this consciousness could not cognize dharmas such as form.

If it could cognize them, then blind people should also be able to see forms. At that time, this person’s mind and mental factors may still concern the past or future; but if past and future dharmas do not exist, what do they take as their objects? Such a statement was made only to prevent attachment to a spirit-self.

If all arising necessarily came from two things, it would not arise from four causes and conditions. Yet some consciousness arises without two causes and conditions. For example, the sutra says, “The six ayatanas are the causes and conditions for contact.” In reality, this does not mean that all six ayatanas are taken together; it is stated to exclude a seventh ayatana.

Likewise, the Buddha spoke of two causes and conditions in order to exclude four causes and conditions. Moreover, cognition arises with regard to the past, the future, space, time, direction, and so forth, although those dharmas do not truly exist. This, then, is cognition without an object.

Question: If that is so, then because of these causes and conditions, past and future dharmas should exist; for if they did not exist, how could cognition of them arise? Yet with regard to such things as a rabbit’s horns, a turtle’s hair, and a snake’s feet, cognition never arises?

Answer: Knowledge arises with respect to an action. Thus, upon seeing a person walking, one remembers the time when that person walked; upon hearing a person speaking, one remembers the time when that person spoke. In this way, if everything in the past performs no action, this would be unreasonable.

Question: What is it that is now remembered with respect to the past?

Answer: One remembers a nonexistent dharma. You ask why one does not remember a rabbit’s horns and the like. If a dharma arose and then ceased, it can be remembered.

But how could something that has never existed from the beginning be remembered? For example, what was formerly called a sentient being, although now past, is still called a sentient being. Thus, because recollection of this dharma arose in the past, it is now this very mind that recollects it, not another mind.

Furthermore, this person previously apprehended the characteristic of that dharma. Although that dharma has now ceased, it can give rise to the dharma of recollective conceptual discrimination. When a dharma arises in that mind, after this dharma has ceased, mental consciousness subsequently arises.

The capacity to know that event is called consciousness taking a characteristic as its object. Moreover, this characteristic can serve as the cause and condition for a later consciousness taking that characteristic as its object. But a rabbit’s horns and the like have no characteristic to serve as a cause; therefore, such consciousness does not arise.

Yet there should also be cognition having a rabbit’s horns and the like as its object; otherwise, how could one speak of them?

Question: The nature of a rabbit’s horns and the like cannot be known. Why? Because thoughts of their being long or short, black or white, and so forth never arise. Past dharmas are likewise. Why? Because we cannot cause past dharmas to become present before our eyes, whereas a noble one can know the future and say, “This event will be thus; that event will not be thus.”

Answer: Such is the power of a noble one’s knowledge: although a dharma does not yet exist, the noble one can know it in advance. Just as a noble one can pass through a stone wall, entering and leaving without obstruction, so it is with this matter: though something does not exist, it can still be known. Furthermore, it is known through the power of memory.

For example, eye-consciousness cannot distinguish male from female. If eye-consciousness cannot do so, it might be supposed that mental consciousness also cannot; yet mental consciousness truly can. This matter is likewise.

Furthermore, just as we give rise to knowledge regarding a previous event that has already ceased, so too can a noble one give rise to knowledge regarding a nonexistent dharma. Furthermore, when one says “Devadatta,” no single consciousness knows all four syllables, yet one can still know the name. This matter is likewise.

Furthermore, concerning differences in number, conjunction and separation, this and that, and so forth, although no presently existing dharma is found therein, knowledge can still arise. Furthermore, a person’s body cannot be known in its entirety through a single thought, nor can it be understood by knowing each part separately. Although it is not known by separately analyzing each part and is not known in a single thought, knowledge of the person nevertheless arises.

This matter is likewise. You say that there is no example of something capable of knowing its own essence through causes and conditions. It is said in this connection that the mind can know itself, and that a practitioner, while contemplating in accordance with the mind, proceeds until reaching the state of no-mind.

One should therefore know that the present mind takes the present mind as its object. If this were not so, there would ultimately be no one capable of knowing present dharmas associated with the mind.

Question: The sutra says: “If one is able to contemplate with wisdom that all dharmas are without self, one thereby becomes disenchanted with suffering. This path is purity.” Does this wisdom, apart from its own essence and the dharmas arising together with it, take all remaining dharmas as its objects?

Answer: This knowledge takes only the contaminated as its object, not the uncontaminated. Why? Because the verse says, “One thereby becomes disenchanted with suffering.” Thus, one knows that it takes only the truth of suffering as its object.

Furthermore, knowledge of non-self is cultivated in order to destroy the view of self. The view of self takes the five aggregates of clinging as its objects; therefore, one should know that non-self likewise takes the aggregates of clinging as its objects. Because these five aggregates of clinging are impermanent, they are without self.

As the sutra says: “Whatever is impermanent is without self. Whatever is without self is suffering.” Furthermore, the Buddha said to a bhiksu: “Abandon what does not belong to you.” The bhiksu said, “I understand, Blessed One!” The Buddha asked, “What have you understood?” “Blessed One, form is not mine; feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are likewise not mine.” The Buddha praised him: “Excellent! Excellent!” Therefore, one knows that the mind of non-self arises only concerning the aggregates of clinging.

Furthermore, the sutra says: “Whatever forms there are—past or future, internal or external, coarse or subtle, near or far, large or small—should all be known as neither self nor belonging to self.” Thus should one contemplate them as they truly are with right wisdom. It also says: “Contemplate form as without self, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness as without self. Contemplate form as impermanent, false, and deceptive, like an illusion that deludes those without the eye of wisdom; as an enemy, as a thief, as without self, and as not belonging to self.” Furthermore, the Buddha said: “In this assembly there is a foolish person who still remains within the shell of ignorance and is blinded by ignorance.

Thus, abandoning the Buddha-Dharma, he gives rise to this wrong view: ‘If form is without self, and feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are all without self, then, when there is no self, who creates karma and who undergoes its result?’” Therefore, one knows that non-self takes only the aggregates of clinging as its objects. Furthermore, nowhere in the sutras is it said that knowledge of non-self takes all dharmas as its objects; rather, it is repeatedly said that it takes the five aggregates of clinging as its objects.

Question: The Buddha himself said, “All dharmas are without self.” Therefore, one should know that this knowledge takes both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas as its objects, not merely the five aggregates of clinging. It is also said that the ten kinds of emptiness take all dharmas as their objects. Emptiness is precisely non-self.

It is further said: “All formations are impermanent and suffering; all dharmas are without self.” If knowledge of non-self takes only the truth of suffering as its object, why does the text not say, “All formations are without self”? Because it says, “All dharmas are without self,” one knows that when it speaks of “formations,” it refers to conditioned dharmas, whereas when it speaks of “dharmas,” it includes everything universally.

It is also said: “For one in whom wisdom concerning the single characteristic of dharmas and the distinct characteristics of dharmas becomes manifest, it is as though a clear-sighted person were seeing forms. Only the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, who have attained liberation through right knowledge, can have wisdom concerning the single characteristic of dharmas and the distinct characteristics of dharmas become manifest, just as a clear-sighted person sees forms.” Because dharmas have the characteristic of non-self, they possess a single characteristic.

Therefore, one should know that non-self takes all dharmas as its objects, not merely suffering.

Answer: There are two kinds of “all”: one encompasses everything, while the other encompasses only a portion. That which encompasses everything is illustrated when the Buddha said, “I am the Knower of All.” Here, “all” refers to the twelve ayatanas. That which encompasses only a portion is illustrated by the expression “all is thus,” whereas the uncontaminated and unconditioned “cannot be apprehended as thus.” Furthermore, in the chapter on the Tathagata, it is said that the Tathagata is one who has abandoned all and one who surpasses all.

Yet it is impossible to abandon such dharmas as observance of the precepts; it is only because he has abandoned evil dharmas that he is said to have abandoned all. Nor can he surpass the other Buddhas; it is only because he surpasses all sentient beings that he is said to surpass all. It is also said: “Bhiksu, what is meant by the Knower of All?”

Answer: It means knowing, in accordance with reality, the arising and cessation of the six bases of contact. This is called knowing the common characteristic of all dharmas; it is not knowledge of their particular characteristics.” The Buddha knows both their common and particular characteristics completely and is therefore called the Omniscient One. Since that bhiksu had fully known that all dharmas are impermanent and so forth, he too was called omniscient. Although the designation is the same, the actuality differs. This is called inclusion of one part within the whole.

Furthermore, the Buddha said: “If a teaching has been included in the Sutra Pitaka, accords with the Vinaya Pitaka, and does not contradict the characteristics of the Dharma, that teaching should be accepted.” He also said: “Suppose someone says, ‘This was spoken by the Buddha,’ but his words are correct while their meaning is wrong. The wise should state the correct meaning therein and ask that bhiksu, ‘With what meaning should those words accord?’” Again, someone may express the correct meaning in incorrect words. In presenting that correct meaning, the proper wording should be supplied separately. Such cases and others like them are all permitted in the Buddha’s sutras.

Moreover, there are sutras of definitive meaning and sutras of non-definitive meaning—that is, teachings that are ultimate and teachings that are not ultimate. This sutra is of non-definitive meaning. Why does it apply the term “all” to a single matter? Its intention must be understood. People in the world also use the word “all” with reference to a single matter, as when they say, “Make offerings to all,” “Give food to all,” or “This person eats everything.” Therefore, although it is said that all is without self, one should understand that this is spoken only with reference to the five appropriated skandhas, not to all dharmas.

Some speak of ten kinds of emptiness. Among them, there cannot be an “emptiness of the unconditioned.” Why? Because no one gives rise to the perception of self with regard to the unconditioned. Therefore, even if the term “emptiness” remains, there is no harm, because a person may also use the knowledge of suffering in association with emptiness. Thus, “emptiness” does not take all dharmas as its objects.

Question: Does worldly emptiness not take all dharmas as its objects and remain non-uncontaminated?

Answer: There is no worldly emptiness. All emptiness is uncontaminated.

Question: In the Sutra on the Seal of the Dharma, is the emptiness spoken of not worldly emptiness?

Answer: It is supramundane emptiness, not worldly emptiness.

Question: It says therein, “Knowledge and vision are not yet purified.” Should this not therefore be understood as worldly emptiness?

Answer: I have already said that an uncontaminated mind is capable of destroying provisional designations. Therefore, from the time provisional designations are destroyed onward, it is called an uncontaminated mind. Only later, upon seeing the truth of cessation and abandoning overweening pride, is it called purified knowledge and vision. Thus, there is no worldly emptiness.

You say that all conditioned formations are impermanent and all dharmas are without self. In this way, the practitioner must fully develop the perception of non-self. When the perception of dharmas is complete, the designation “dharma” is used in explaining non-self. As stated in the chapter on seeing the truths: “If a person does not see suffering, he thereby sees a self. If he sees suffering in accordance with reality, he no longer sees a self.” “In accordance with reality” means seeing non-self. Therefore, although it is said that all dharmas are without self, the practice of contemplating non-self is taught only with suffering as its object.

You say that the Buddha directly perceives the characteristic of unity and the characteristics of difference. This too must be admitted. Since the dhatus, ayatanas, and so forth are regarded collectively as one, what fault is there in speaking of the characteristic of unity?

End of Fascicle Fifteen of the Satyasiddhi Shastra