三彌底部論

Homage to the Omniscient One. From this statement I ask thus: when a person is dying, the mind is sincerely indeterminate. By what karma does this person proceed to rebirth?

Answer: If there is karma accompanied by a defiled determinate mind, that karma brings birth in an evil destiny. If there is an undefiled determinate mind, it produces pure karma and birth in a good destiny. The nature of a determinate mind accords with this in its course. An indeterminate mind gives rise to indeterminate karma. Because karma has already been created, one proceeds to rebirth accordingly. Therefore, the action is not interrupted. Whether through the eye, through grief and anger, or through dying without conscious mind, that activity creates karma leading to rebirth. This is the second part of the discourse, clarifying what is corresponding. The third part of the discourse makes clear that it is not lost. That karma becomes karma through being created by oneself.

What does “created by oneself” mean?

Answer: It means experiencing.

What does “one’s own karma” mean?

Answer: It means a corresponding share. Why, then, does one not proceed to rebirth there? What does this birth mean?

By what means? This is the sphere of activity. Why is this so?

Because of that. This does not cease. Why?

Because it is experienced. This is what is demonstrated. Karma created in this life is not lost.

Through karmic retribution, birth is experienced in four places. Dying here in the desire realm, one is born into an existence within the desire realm, passing between a state of existence and the intermediate existence. Thus, whether it is a place in the desire realm or a place in the form realm—the first place or the third place—it may be said that one is born elsewhere.

Thus, from an intermediate existence in the desire realm one again experiences an intermediate existence in the desire realm. From that intermediate existence in the desire realm, one experiences an intermediate existence in the form realm. It is so.

Dying in the desire realm, one will experience birth in an intermediate existence. Thus, this is the third place. From the form realm, there is likewise an intermediate existence in the form realm in which birth is experienced.

When we die, we likewise experience an intermediate existence. How did the Blessed One explain to the shravakas the passage from one intermediate existence into another?—It is not the same as for ordinary beings. Why is this so?—A stream-enterer undergoes seven births and seven deaths from here in intermediate existences among the gods.

There he attains the fruit of the once-returner. From an intermediate existence among the gods, this person enters an intermediate existence among humans. Living here, he realizes disenchantment with and freedom from desire for the desire realm.

From an intermediate existence among humans, he is born into an intermediate existence in the form realm. Remaining there, he is one who, in the interval, is destined for the realm of nirvana. From there he enters an intermediate existence, and there attains parinirvana.

Thus a shravaka passes through four intermediate existences. Some proponents also maintain that after passing beyond the state of a once-returner, one proceeds from this once-returner’s intermediate existence among humans as far as a certain terrestrial place, thus passing beyond the human intermediate existence. In this way, from a heavenly state in the desire realm one enters another heavenly state in the desire realm.

This should be clearly understood. Some leave the five skandhas and are born in a state of existence, where they experience the five skandhas of the intermediate existence. I shall now discuss all of this on the basis of the present statement.

Why is there a self, and why is the self relinquished? If what is experienced here is experienced there, what uncertainty does this action raise?

Answer: Doubt arises because one sees a difference in the teacher’s preceding intention. It should also be said that in truth there is no self; only the skandhas and ayatanas constitute what is called the self. Why?—Once that which arises has arisen, the Blessed One told Katyayana that suffering arises and suffering ceases. Those schools constantly observe the arising of suffering; therefore, it is clear that they hold that there is no self.

Again—What is meant by speaking of no-self?

Answer: That is not what is said. The Blessed One also told the ascetic Seniya that, according to his knowledge and vision of the truth of phenomena, he should truthfully declare no-self. The Blessed One said: “One who sees thus is called a Teacher. He is called Tathagata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddha.” Therefore, I say that what those schools see is described as empty. Hence, to say that no-self means sheer nonexistence is false.

Again—What is the meaning of no-self?

Answer: It concerns one’s own view of this body. The Blessed One said: Because an uninstructed, unknowing ordinary person does not see, hear, or understand, he regards form as self and the self as form; form as existing within the self, and the self as existing within form. The same fourfold view applies to each of the other four skandhas.

If there were a self, one should not abandon oneself. Regarding the five skandhas of this body as its substance is like someone abandoning his own body, taking Devadatta’s body, and regarding it as his own: “This body is precisely Devadatta’s body; Devadatta is within this body, and this body is within Devadatta.” If one abandons one’s own faculty of sight and grasps Devadatta’s eyes in order to see, then when one sees an elephant’s tusk, it would be this cognition that sees, yet it would also not be this that sees.

Therefore, this is what is meant by no-self.

Again—What is the meaning of no-self?

Answer: It means that neither self nor what belongs to self can be found.

The Blessed One taught the bhikshus: “If there truly were a self, there would be what belongs to a self. If there were what belongs to a self, there would be a self.” In truth, self and what belongs to self cannot be found. Therefore, this is called no-self. The other schools likewise see that self and what belongs to self cannot be found, and thus speak of no-self in this way.

Again—Why is no-self taught?

Answer: Because it does not truly exist.

As Purna said to the elder bhikshus: “The Dharma taught by the Buddha is truly difficult to fathom; there is no entity whatsoever that is a self.”

The Buddha himself said: “If a self exists in this manner, then the elders possess a self.” One should understand that the depth of this statement cannot be measured. It is not truly existent, and the other schools understand that it is not a real principle. Therefore, no-self is taught in this way.

Again—Other schools say: “One cannot say that a self exists, nor can one say that there is no self.” Why?

Answer: Because the characteristic of the self cannot be expressed. If there were a self, it could be spoken of. Activities and their characteristics can be spoken of. The unconditioned and its characteristics can be spoken of. In the same way, the self and its characteristics could be spoken of.

The other schools hold that the characteristic of the self cannot be expressed. Therefore, neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self can be stated.

Again—Why can neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self be stated?

Answer: Because of the direct question. Why? There are four kinds of questions. First is a question answered directly. Second is a question that must first be analyzed and then answered. Third is a question answered by posing a counterquestion. Fourth is a question to be set aside without answer. The present question about the self is to be set aside without answer. Therefore, one cannot say either that a self exists or that no self exists.

Again—Why can neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self be stated?

Answer: Because of the conjunction of identity and difference. If a self existed, it could be spoken of. This conditioned activity differs from that conditioned activity; and this is unconditioned, hence it differs from the unconditioned. These two alternatives are said to be indeterminate. Therefore, one cannot say either that a self exists or that no self exists.

Again—Why can neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self be stated?

Answer: Because of the conjunction of permanence and impermanence. If it could be said that a self exists, it would be either permanent or impermanent. These two alternatives necessarily demand determination, yet the matter is indeterminate. Therefore, one cannot say that a self exists, nor can one say that no self exists.

Again—Why can neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self be stated?

Answer: Because it depends upon existence and nonexistence.

The Buddha told Katyayana: “The world relies upon two extremes: it relies upon existence and it relies upon nonexistence.” Because of attachment, people grasp existence and nonexistence. Therefore, neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self can be stated.

Other schools again say that a self truly exists. Why?

Because of bondage to language.

The Buddha taught: “Through bondage to form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, one is drawn from this life into another.” Those schools observe this bondage and therefore say that a self exists.

Again—Why does a self exist?

Answer: Because of right view.

The Buddha said: “There is a person who sees birth and transformation and regards this as right seeing.”

Those schools regard this view as right seeing. Therefore, they say that a self exists.

Again—Why does a self exist?

Answer: Because the Buddha taught the four foundations of mindfulness.

The Buddha taught contemplation of body, feeling, mind, and dharmas. If there were no self, one could not contemplate these four dharmas. Those schools see that the Buddha taught the four foundations of mindfulness. Therefore, they say that a self exists.

Again—Why does a self exist?

Answer: Because the Buddha spoke of the shravaka.

The Buddha said: “There is a person who burns himself and urges another to burn himself.” This is precisely such an instance, and the Buddha said that there is such a person. If no person existed, there would be no one who burned himself and no one who could burn another. Those schools see this and hold that the person spoken of by the Buddha is precisely a self.

Again—Why do the other schools say that a self exists?

Answer: Because when one person appears in the world, many people gain happiness.

The Buddha said: “Bhikshus, when a person endowed with all virtues is born in the world, many people gain happiness.” If there were no person, who would give rise to virtue?

Therefore, those schools see that one person is born and say that a self exists.

Other schools again say that the five skandhas are precisely the person, precisely the self.

Question: Why?

Answer: Because of the teaching concerning the gateways of the dhatus.

The Buddha said: “Bhikshus, the six dhatus and the six contacts are the person.” The other schools see that the Buddha described the six gateways of the six dhatus and the six contacts as the person. Therefore, they take these to be the person.

Again—Why is this person this person and not another?

Answer: Because the Buddha spoke in a scripture of the foremost woman in that country.

The Buddha said: “The one of whom I speak is the foremost woman. She may be fair, dark, blue, well-formed, square, tall, short, slender-waisted, or stout.” Thus, it is this person and not another.

The Buddha also told the bhikshus: “There is a person who sees a bhikshu as repulsive because he is short, covered with sores, and has crooked legs.”

The Buddha also said: “With the divine eye I see beings who are lovely and others who are repulsive.”

It is also said that people in hell are burned like grass, and that hell burns people in just this way.

As previously stated regarding the foremost woman, the repulsive bhikshu, the beings whom the Buddha sees as lovely or repulsive, and the people burned in hell like firewood and so forth: these are precisely the five skandhas, precisely the person, and not another person. Those schools see this, and the Buddha says that these skandhas are precisely the person. Thus, this is the person.

Other schools say that the person is different from the five skandhas. Why?

Answer: Because of the analogy of a person bearing a heavy burden.

The Buddha said: “The heavy burden is precisely the five skandhas; the bearer is the person.” Therefore, this person is associated with each skandha, yet is different from the skandhas.

Again—Why is this person different from the skandhas?

The Buddha said that this person grasps through appropriation and craving. These two things continually cause the person to revolve in samsara. Craving is distinct; it is precisely the person associated with each skandha.

Again—Why is the person associated with each skandha?

Answer: Because the person experiences the fruit of karma. The Buddha spoke this verse:

Life after life, one rejoices;

In another life, one rejoices still more.

Doing merit, one rejoices in both;

One sees for oneself that this karma is pure.

In this life, through karmic retribution;

In the next, it must again be borne.

When the skandhas perish, karma follows onward;

One then receives another body of skandhas.

The other schools observe the experiencing of karmic retribution and therefore say that the person is associated with each skandha.

Again—Why is the person associated with each skandha?

Answer: Because this is spoken of as “I.”

The Buddha said: “In a former life I was a wheel-turning sage-king named Good Vision, also called Mahadeva.” Therefore, although I now experience a new body, the former skandhas are not different from me. Hence the person is associated with each skandha.

Again—Why is the person associated with each skandha?

Answer: Because of what is left indeterminate.

The Buddha said that the skandhas are impermanent, but did not say that the person is impermanent. Sometimes he said that the skandhas bear the characteristic of impermanence. At other times, he said that the skandhas bear the characteristic of permanence. Therefore, the characteristic of permanence differs from that of impermanence. Hence, the person is associated with each skandha.

Other schools say that the person is permanent. Why?

Answer: Because it has no beginning, for the person cannot be traced to a first point in samsara.

As the Buddha said: “Samsara is without discoverable beginning, and beings revolve within it. The origin of samsara cannot be discerned.” Therefore, it is said to have no beginning.

Because the person has neither beginning nor end, this person is permanent.

Again—Why is the person said to be permanent?

Answer: Because one can recollect past lives.

The Buddha spoke of recollecting one life, and even innumerable past kalpas of birth. Only the skandhas perish and flow onward through samsara; the person does not perish.

Some schools observe the recollection of one or many past lives and therefore say that the person is permanent.

Again—Why is the person said to be permanent?

Answer: Because of the teaching concerning the place.

The Buddha said: “Having crossed to the farther shore and dwelling upon that ground, one is called a brahmin.” The Buddha also said: “Having departed for the farther shore, one does not return.” Again, the Buddha said: “One who has crossed to the farther shore abides there without falling away; having reached that shore, he is free from sorrow.” If one sees a person cross to the farther shore, abide there without falling away, and remain free from sorrow, one says that this person is permanent.

Those schools observe that the Buddha spoke of such a place. Therefore, they say that this person is permanent.

Again—Why is this person said to be permanent?

Answer: Because ultimately he does not produce pleasure.

The Buddha also spoke this verse:

Thus, truly liberated,

Wishing to cross beyond the mire,

The wise cannot yet fathom him;

Ultimately he does not delight.

Those schools see that the Buddha spoke of ultimately not delighting. Therefore, they regard this person as permanent. Since ultimately this person produces no pleasure, he has no skandhas. His whereabouts cannot be known. Therefore, this person is said to be permanent.

Other schools say that this person is impermanent.

Question: Why?

Answer: Because he has an origin.

The Buddha said: “Bhikshus, there is one person who is born and causes everyone to gain happiness.” If there is birth, there is an origin. If there is an origin, there is an end. Therefore, this person is impermanent.

Again—Why is this person impermanent?

Answer: Because the Buddha spoke of one newly arisen.

The Buddha said: “A newly born deity has fine form, dignity, and majestic virtue.” This newcomer passes under the law of impermanence and is therefore called new. Hence this person is impermanent.

Again—Why is this person impermanent?

Answer: Because he has come into the realm of conditioned dharmas.

The Buddha said: “King Prasenajit, although a king, has come here from another life.” If one has come into conditioned existence, one is impermanent. Therefore, this person is impermanent.

Again—Why is this person impermanent?

Answer: Because he is subject to birth.

Nirvana is permanent, does not perish, and is not born. Relying upon the Buddha’s teaching, we see that beings undergo birth. Because the Buddha said that they undergo birth, this person is impermanent.

Again—Why is the person impermanent?

Answer: Because he passes through birth, aging, sickness, and death.

The Buddha said: “I have been the good spiritual friend of innumerable assemblies of the four classes. Through birth and death I came here, and here I attained liberation from birth and death.” Birth, aging, sickness, and death are impermanent dharmas. Therefore, this person is impermanent.

These scriptures are taken as the basis. Some say that there is truly no self. Others say that one cannot say a self exists. Some doctrines say that a self exists. Therefore, we give rise to doubt. Yet in reality there is a self, though it is designated provisionally. Thus, some say that the five skandhas are the self; some say that the self differs from the five skandhas; some say it is permanent; and some say it is impermanent. Therefore, we give rise to doubt.

Question: Why does the person abandon this existence and experience another existence?

Answer: According to the intention of the scriptures, through the power of the teaching one may clearly understand the five appropriated skandhas. The person formed through them is a real person possessing the five appropriated skandhas. Because the person is real, it cannot be said that the person is either permanent or impermanent.

Again it is asked: In the preceding section, no-self was taught first. How are all the subsequent attachments to be explained and liberation attained from them?

Answer: As stated earlier, once what arises has arisen, no-self is understood in this way.

We now say further: Suffering itself arises and ceases as suffering; this is the nature of suffering.

Wishing to reveal this nature, the Buddha told Katyayana: “Suffering arises with arising, and suffering ceases with cessation.” The arising and cessation of the self cannot easily be expressed. Therefore, the Buddha spoke thus.

Again, as previously stated, because it is not spoken of, there is no self.

We now say: What we call its characteristic is based upon belief.

As the Buddha said for the sake of non-Buddhist practitioners: Although there is a self, it is only a provisional designation; there is no real self of which “self” can be spoken, for the designation depends upon the outflow-tainted skandhas.

The Buddha observed dharmas coming and going and therefore spoke of a self, though in reality no true self exists.

As the Buddha said, a designation exists because experience depends upon conditioned activity. Thus the Buddha taught that “self” is a name.

Again, as stated earlier, because one views this body as oneself, no-self is taught.

We now say: What is obscured by ignorance? The five skandhas are without self, yet their meaning is taken to be a self.

A newborn infant does not clearly understand. Seeing only its mother, it says, “This is mother.” Likewise, the five skandhas are without self, yet their meaning is taken as a self. Therefore, the Buddha taught in this way.

Again, as stated earlier, we now say: Relying upon the Buddha’s words, we know that neither an autonomous self nor what belongs to self truly exists or can be found.

What is made by another is not called self-made. If it is self-made, it is not called something made by another for me. Thus, by severing both self and other, the self is not annihilated.

Again, as previously stated, because it does not truly exist, it is called no-self.

We now explain “not truly existent.”

The unreal, together with nonexistent dharmas, amounts to emptiness; yet to say that it exists is difficult to believe. Therefore, we stop short of saying it exists, but do not thereby annihilate the self.

The other schools previously said that its characteristic cannot be expressed; hence one cannot say that there is a self or that there is no self.

We now say: Neither the characteristic of permanence nor that of impermanence can be predicated of the self. Yet it may also be said that an ignorant person exists.

As the Buddha said: “There is a person who burns himself, together with all else.”

The Buddha also said: “An uninstructed and unknowing ordinary person is characterized by evil karma; an intelligent person is characterized by good karma.” Therefore, the schools’ claim that nothing can be predicated has no basis.

The schools previously said that the existence or nonexistence of a self is a direct question, yet the matter remains unclear. We say: Because the question is not properly framed, it is set aside. If it were properly framed, it would not be set aside.

As the Buddha taught: “Ignorant ordinary people are habitually unwholesome; intelligent people are habitually good.” Therefore, the schools’ assertion that nothing can be predicated is without basis.

The schools previously said that neither the existence nor the nonexistence of a self can be determined as identical or different. We now say: If I am the person who has passed through former lives, those past activities are different activities. It is correct to call them different activities, and so they should be described. Therefore, the other schools’ assertion that nothing can be predicated is without basis.

The schools previously said that neither existence nor nonexistence of a self can be described as permanent or impermanent. We now say: If the self is asserted to exist or not exist, these assertions can become the annihilationist view or the eternalist view. The Buddha approved neither of these two views. Yet if one says nothing, one falls into error and does not identify either alternative. Such an assertion is untenable. Why? If an action is spoken of while no person exists, this is called wrong view. Therefore, it can be said that a person exists.

As a scripture says: “To say that action exists but no person exists is called wrong view. To say that a person exists is called the view of self.” If it is said to exist, the question of permanence and impermanence arises. If this person acts, then whether permanent or impermanent, both the person and his action exist. The action is impermanent; the unconditioned is permanent; but the person is not of this kind. The person is associated with existence but not with either permanence or impermanence. This should be clearly understood.

The schools previously said that the existence or nonexistence of a self cannot be spoken of because such speech depends upon existence and nonexistence. We now say: If both alternatives amounted to no-self, the Buddha would not have spoken of dependence. Since the Buddha did speak of dependence, the existence of a self can be stated.

The schools previously spoke of the self as being bound. We now say: There need not be a separate person who binds for bondage to exist. It is like a king confined in prison. Even if no person binds him, there are pillars and connecting bonds. Just as bondage exists when ropes bind things together, without rope there is no bondage.

Thus, even in no-self, bondage may be spoken of. The schools previously said that a self exists because this is right view. We now say: Depending upon the outflow-tainted skandhas, the Buddha says that there is a person, and because of the view concerning this person, he says that a person exists. This is called right view.

The schools previously said that a self exists because the Buddha taught the four foundations of mindfulness. We now say: The Buddha taught Katyayana that there is only this mind, yet wished to disclose body, feeling, mind, and dharmas. To say that there is only this mind means that these dharmas are established as not separate from it.

The schools previously said that a self exists because the Buddha gave such teachings to the shravakas. We now say: “Shravaka” designates a position. What is said in dependence upon the dharma of the shravakas is not different from it. Likewise, the schools previously said that a self exists for this reason. We now say: The Buddha declared that “person” is a provisional designation. In this respect, therefore, there is no self. If there truly were no self whatsoever, there would be neither killing nor killer. There would be no place of killing, nor would there be stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, or drinking intoxicants.

This would be absolute no-self. If there were no self whatsoever, the five heinous offenses would not adhere to anyone. The faculties would give rise to neither good nor evil.

No one would be bound; no one would release the bonds; nor would there be any locus of bondage. There would be no agent, no karma, and no karmic result. If there were no karma, there would be no karmic result.

If karma and its result did not exist, there would be no samsara. Yet beings revolve in samsara through karma and its results. If samsara did not exist, its cause would not exist either.

If no cause existed, cessation would not exist. If there were no cause of cessation, the various realms would not exist. Thus the Four Noble Truths would not exist.

If the Four Noble Truths did not exist, there would be no Buddha to teach them. If there were no Buddha, there would be no Sangha. Thus there would be no person, and neither the Three Jewels nor the Four Noble Truths would exist.

In that case, no doctrine whatsoever could be established. Therefore, if no person existed, nothing could be established and no subsequent birth could arise. If there is a person, a self, the foregoing statements are not erroneous.

One should clearly understand this in accordance with what the Buddha taught in the scriptures. Therefore, a self truly exists. The schools previously said that the five skandhas are precisely the person—the gateway and sphere of the self.

We now say:

If the person perished and another self appeared, the scriptures would not disclose it. If the self were the skandhas, then the skandhas would be the self and the self would be the skandhas. If the skandhas were the self, one could not speak separately of the self in this way. If the self were the skandhas, the self could be spoken of but the skandhas could not. Or both could be spoken of as not being the five skandhas. Such is the self.

The schools previously said that the person differs from the five skandhas, as the bearer differs from the burden. We now say: It is in dependence upon bearing that a bearer is spoken of. If the self differed from the skandhas, when they perished or arose, the self would likewise arise and cease. If this body were ground into separate parts, the self would likewise be divided into parts. Each part would thereby become many parts, and when the many parts perished they would become one. As long as the body remains, life remains with it; and as long as life remains, the body also remains. Therefore, the skandhas are precisely the self. This can be clearly understood.

The other schools previously said that the person differs from the skandhas and that appropriation and craving are different things. We now say:

A person of right view has no doubt. A person bound by craving revolves in samsara. Wishing to reveal this, the Buddha spoke of the person who has appropriation and craving. Through these two things, one wanders far in samsara; when craving is severed, one no longer revolves therein. Therefore, the self is not different from the skandhas.

The schools previously said that the person is associated with each skandha because of the karmic fruit of craving. We now say:

Samsara arises in dependence upon what is tainted by outflows. Whether born in this life or another, one experiences this karmic result. Therefore, the person and the skandhas are not separate.

Again, the schools previously said that the person and each skandha are mutually different. We therefore spoke as above. We now say further:

The Buddha spoke in dependence upon those skandhas, saying: “In the past, innumerable asamkhya kalpas ago, I was once King Murdhaja.” Therefore, the person and the skandhas are not mutually different.

Again, other schools previously said that whether the person and the skandhas are mutually different cannot be clearly known. We now say:

Whether the skandhas and the self are different or not different cannot be stated. Therefore, dharma-characteristics, beginning with permanence and impermanence, cannot be predicated of it; nor can I state them.

If the self differed from the skandhas, the Buddha would have said that the self differs from the body, differs from the Buddha, and is something not recollected. Yet this is not made clear in the scriptures. If the self differed from the skandhas, it could either abide within the skandhas or pervade all places.

If it were within the skandhas, then when this body was ground apart, the self could be seen, just as a mosquito inside an udumbara fruit can be seen when the fruit is split open. If the self were within the skandhas, it would be the same. If the self differed from this body, then when the body touched something hot, the self could not know it.

Again, when the eyes are dim, one sees an object as two. Likewise, when the faculties are impaired, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, and so forth are cognized accordingly.

Again, if the self differed from the body, it would enter another body from this one, and when that body perished it would enter yet another, like a person going from one room into another and then returning to the first room. If the self were different in this way, this should be clearly known.

Again, if the self differed from the skandhas, it would not receive birth in particular places. If it received birth everywhere, in a single thought-moment it would be transformed and born in every place. Therefore, it would not constantly remain in the body, and liberation would be extremely difficult to attain. If it traveled everywhere, it could not create karma. If there were no karmic result, there would be no shared karma, no bondage or release, and no cultivation of dhyana; one would immediately attain liberation. None of this is possible. Therefore, the claim that the person differs from the body may be clearly stated to be untenable.

Treatise of the Sammitiya School

End of the Upper Fascicle