三彌底部論

As the other schools previously said that the person is permanent and has no origin, we now say:

If being without an origin entailed permanence, then saṃsāra, which is also without an origin, would likewise be permanent. This assertion is not so. Nor can it be said in this way that the person has no origin.

As the other schools previously said that the person is permanent because one remembers past lives, we now say:

If the self were definitely different from the skandhas, then when the skandhas perished, the person would not be lost. Thus, when remembering the past, there would be only this same person and no other, while the flow of saṃsāra would remain uninterrupted. This claim is not so.

As the other schools previously said that the person is permanent and spoke of its locus in this manner, we now say:

The stream of suffering is severed and extinguished, up to nirvana with remainder. Because the body remains, there is designation, and one crosses to and abides on the other shore. The brahmin also reaches nirvana without remainder and thereby attains nirvana without remainder. This was taught by the Buddha; therefore, one should not say that the person is permanent.

As the other schools previously said that the person permanently reaches unmoving bliss, we now say:

Upon realizing nirvana without remainder, one reaches the state of unmoving bliss. If the person were permanent, it would be neither born nor die, like nirvana. The body’s being unborn and undying would likewise be no different. This wisdom would be no different in any place whatsoever. Whether eating or not eating, that bliss would not differ from permanence. One would never forget events of the past. Because one was permanent, one would not change; nor would one be bound or liberated. Therefore, the proposition that the person is permanent should be set aside.

As the other schools previously said that the person is impermanent and has an origin,

we now say:

The defilements arise, and this is designated the person. Concerning this, it cannot be said that the skandhas and the person are different. Therefore, the arising of the person cannot be asserted. This is a provisional designation, as explained in the preceding answer.

The Buddha also taught otherwise:

If the person were impermanent, there would be no birth and transmigration. The good and evil karma one had performed would perish, while good and evil karma one had not oneself performed would come to one without a preceding cause. All sentient beings would necessarily be of one kind and would perform no karma. Thus, one who attained liberation would accomplish it by himself and not through karma. Likewise, he would not accomplish merits through karma. There would be no place of birth in a former life, and one could not remember it. Therefore, the assertion that the person is impermanent should be set aside.

This provisional designation answers the preceding explanation, extending to the non-arising of dharmas and the dharmas of birth, aging, sickness, death, and so forth. Such is the impermanence of the person.

Question: Why is it said that a person exists?

Answer: The Buddha taught three kinds of designation of the person.

Question: What are the three?

Answer: Designation of a person in dependence upon a basis, designation of a person as transmigrating, and designation of a person as ceasing. (Such designation is called imposition, convention, and provisional designation.)

Question: What is designation in dependence upon a basis?

Answer: As the Buddha taught in speaking to Bạt Bà Gia: “This is the field of conduct.” It is spoken in dependence upon a basis. This is an imposed name.

This designation depends upon a basis, like fire. As the Buddha told Śāriputra: “There is something designated ‘elephant,’ white and lovely. It is formed from the four great elements and is designated ‘self.’” All such cases are also like milk. Thus, designation is made in dependence upon the scriptures; this is called designation in dependence upon a basis.

It is like form: the form of a person is apprehended, yet that apprehended form of a person is difficult to describe. Form as different and that which differs from form are also difficult to describe. Having apprehended the form of a person as different, one relies upon that form to designate the person in dependence upon form. If someone says, “This form is precisely the self,” then this form becomes the designated self that I perceive. If someone says that form is precisely the self, then the five past skandhas are the person. The error in this proposition has already been explained.

Again, if someone says that the person is apprehended through form yet is different from form, it should be called different from what I perceive. If he says that the self is different, then the person of the past is different from the five skandhas, and this is erroneous.

The form of a person is apprehended from this matter. This is not a true assertion. If someone says that the form of the person is apprehended from material form, this becomes a wrong view. One who holds a wrong view declares that there is no self. This has already been explained above and is altogether incorrect. These are precisely the three errors.

Therefore, it is truly different from a wrong view; it neither follows true difference nor follows a wrong view. The apprehension of the form of a person in dependence upon form can be expressed. Therefore, the apprehended form of the person together with actual form can be expressed.

Thus, there are times when form arises, times when that form becomes the form of a person and arises, and times when that form perishes. At that time, the apprehended form of the person also perishes. Apart from this, it cannot be described.

The same applies to the five skandhas, the twelve gateways, and the five destinies. When the destiny of the asuras is included, the skandhas comprise the seven destinies of persons. Birth has its stages: kalala, arbuda, and the lump of flesh.

A newborn child is first small, then reaches middle age and old age, while good and evil are impressed upon the mind. The precepts may be violated, and all such things may be conjoined or disjoined. A person designated in dependence upon the foregoing dharmas is called a person designated in dependence upon a basis.

This may be clearly understood.

Question: Why is a person said to transmigrate?

Answer: Because one crosses from this time to another. The Buddha spoke of sentient beings as transmigrating. But why did he speak of the designation of sentient beings as transmigrating? There is designation concerning the past, designation concerning the future, and designation concerning the present. How is designation made concerning the past?

As the Deva-Messenger Sūtra relates concerning an appeal to Yama: “This person formerly did not understand his parents, siblings, and so forth; did not understand merit; and did not know good and evil. May this be taught to him.”

As the Buddha taught: “At one time in a past kalpa, I was King Mūrdhajāta.” This is called designation concerning the past.

How is designation made concerning the future?

As the Buddha said: “While still a wheel-turning sage king, when he first enters his mother’s womb, it is as though he enters a palace hall.” Likewise, the Buddha said of Maitreya that Ajita would later become a Buddha named Maitreya. This designation concerns the future.

How is designation made concerning the present?

Answer: It is as when the Buddha frequently spoke of a person of Aṅga whose ears and even hands and feet bore many kinds of ornaments. Or as the Buddha said: “A greatly wealthy householder possesses many precious riches and has attained great fulfillment of his wishes.” This is called designation concerning the present. The Buddha established three modes of designation in dependence upon activities in the three times. This should be understood.

Because activity passes on in this way, it is called designation of transmigration.

What is called designation of cessation?

Answer: In accordance with the person designated in dependence upon a basis and the person designated as transmigrating, the Buddha spoke of the person designated as ceasing. For example, when the body perished in the past, this was called designation of cessation.

As the Buddha said: “For a bhikṣu whose defilements are exhausted, the impermanent five skandhas cease.” This is called designation of cessation. As the Buddha said in verse:

The wise cannot yet measure

One who has reached unmoving bliss.

This is called designation of cessation. Thus, designation is made with reference to what is seen and depended upon. Designation of transmigration means saying that there is a person who, on relinquishing the five skandhas of one existence, takes up the five skandhas of another existence.

As for designation in terms of direct vision, the Buddha taught that there is no appropriation, skandha, or locus.

Question: When the five skandhas are relinquished and utterly cease, is there something remaining?

Answer: Wherein lies the doubt?

The questioner replied: Previously, I saw that the teachers’ views contradicted one another, and so doubt arose. Some other schools hold that the five skandhas are on one side and that from here something crosses over to another existence. How could this be? It is because consciousness arises.

The Buddha said: “This person understands cultivation of morality and cultivation of concentration, and this consciousness rises upward to be born in a superior realm.” The Buddha also spoke this verse:

Good and evil are two kinds of karma;

People in the world create this karma.

This karma is their possession;

They bear it themselves, and it follows them.

Coarse skandhas are evil karma;

Subtle skandhas are wholesome conduct.

Both good and evil are created,

And follow wherever one clings.

This person is reborn and receives this fundamental meaning. Therefore, this is called the period of crossing over. A person with the divine eye sees this passage.

As the Buddha told the bhikṣus: “I see sentient beings being born thus,” and the same applies to all. Yet some other schools see the five skandhas as being on one side and something passing from here to another existence.

Other schools similarly speak of the person as passing from here to another existence. That which passes is not the skandhas. Why? The Buddha spoke this verse:

Joyful and delighted in this life,

One is still more joyful in the next.

Creating merit, one rejoices in both lives,

Seeing for oneself this purified karma.

Armed with the faculties, one is born in a good destiny

And is not cast down into an evil destiny.

The Buddha also said: “At death, this one falls into the place of birth.” Therefore, as other schools similarly perceive a person passing from here to there, there is something apart from the skandhas. Yet other schools say there is no person passing from this existence to another. Why? It is as the Buddha spoke to a newly arisen deva concerning how the person is perceived.

The Buddha further said: “This is precisely designated in dependence upon the activity. This is precisely the designation of appropriation.” It is like fire depending upon firewood and thereby receiving its designation.

The Buddha also said that when any virtuous person is born into this world, many people obtain happiness. Such a one was already born in a former life and is not born anew. Therefore, it is said that no person relinquishes this and passes to another existence. Hence doubt arose.

As previously asked: when the five skandhas are relinquished and utterly cease, is there something remaining? Now, if the five skandhas are relinquished, none of the five skandhas remain. Something passes from this existence to another, as the Buddha said in verse:

Relinquishing this human form,

One receives a fully endowed heavenly body.

As the Buddha said: “A person has nothing, for all precious wealth is also relinquished, each in its place.” The Buddha also taught that, at death, one relinquishes this body and sensation proceeds according to itself. While alive, one says, “Everything is mine,” asserting the existence of a self. At death, one must relinquish everything, and sensation or contact also departs of itself. Morality and concentration condition that mind, and through wholesome karma one is born among the devas. Therefore, the Buddha said that such is the wholesome mind; it can produce birth in a higher realm. Thus, when the five skandhas are entirely relinquished, one is immediately born in that excellent place. One follows karma, which is not lost. The Buddha also spoke this verse:

This karma, this possession,

One bears oneself, and it draws one onward.

When the intermediate-state body is reborn in that realm, the body with its faculties again receives the skandhas and ayatanas, and by means of the divine eye one sees that rūpa-skandha.

As the other schools have said that the five skandhas are on one side, that something is lost here and passes into existence there, it is therefore said that this is relinquished.

As previously stated, it is like this person going from this existence to another. Only the person is such, yet the true path does not pass over as something different. If it were truly different, permanent, or impermanent, this would become a wrong view.

As previously explained, true difference, permanence, impermanence, and so forth are obscured by wrong views. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the person and the skandhas are truly different. Thus, it is also difficult to say that this person is born over there.

Question: Why, when the person’s body perishes, do the five kinds of existence arise?

Answer: When the person’s desire ceases, existence arises in dependence upon the five skandhas. This is called existence within the five skandhas and may be expressed in this way. In speaking with reference to the past, it is designated in dependence upon this person.

This can be stated in that way. Therefore, this cannot be based upon a person. Since it is not based upon that meaning, it cannot be said to be this person.

Thus, when Dharma is seen, cessation should occur. When mindfulness ceases, formations cease; yet moment after moment there is continuity. This is what the Buddha taught and should be understood.

Thus, when the five skandhas are relinquished, the entire body perishes, while the person passes from this existence to another. Therefore, it is said that a person relinquishes the five skandhas, is born there, and then receives the succeeding five skandhas of that existence.

Question: Is it that this person first receives the five skandhas and afterward relinquishes them?

Answer: No. If it were as asked, an existence would be produced, and the one produced into existence, after dying as a noble one or an ordinary person, would immediately receive another existence without losing the four kinds of clinging. If the skandhas and the person were different, this would not be so.

Question: Does the person first relinquish the body of five skandhas and afterward receive another body of five skandhas?

Answer: No. According to the question, each person and each mental moment would again become two kinds of existence, and this is incorrect.

Question: Then how does one relinquish the human body and receive another body of five skandhas? Is it received in a single instant or not in a single instant?

Answer: In only one time.

Question: How so?

Answer: When the person dies, the final mental moment arises, and in that interval the mental skandha of the next existence has not yet arisen. Ultimately, as each moment perishes, that mental skandha immediately arises. When the mental skandha arises, a person exists at that time.

Therefore, it is said that the human body is relinquished and the skandhas of existence are received. Why? When the mental skandha arises, the locus of existence is established from within that person, and the mind is present in this locus.

This is called birth—being born into the next existence. Thus, it should be understood as simultaneous. A person relinquishes the five skandhas and is born in the locus of existence; when he receives the five skandhas, there is an intermediate existence.

Therefore, everything is as we have stated.

Question: Do the skandhas have an origin from which they have arisen successively until now? Why do they have an origin, or why do they have no origin? What is the basis of the doubt?

Answer: The Buddha told the bhikṣus: “Saṃsāra has no discernible beginning. The origins of sentient beings revolving in saṃsāra are difficult to discern.” Is it difficult to discern because it is unreal, or is it also indiscernible because it is real? As stated in the twelve questions, the thirteen gateways are unreal and therefore difficult to discern. Because of ignorance, they are not discerned. Why do persons in the Formless Realm not discern persons in the other two realms? They do not discern whether this world comes into being or does not come into being. Matters of truth are very difficult to answer. It may be said that the first origin undergoes change and that this existence has a beginning. Because of this, doubt arises in us.

Question: Is the origin of the person before birth indiscernible because it truly exists or because it truly does not exist? If one possessed knowledge and vision, could it be explained?

Answer: Even what truly exists may be difficult to discern. Why? For example, a real object may be obscured and therefore not discerned.

An extremely minute speck of dust is difficult to discern. Ore beneath the ground is likewise difficult to discern. A person whose eyelids are affected by nearsightedness cannot discern clearly.

Because the eyes are weak, something may be difficult to discern. Consider a hair or a mustard seed: when the mustard seed is divided, its material form is truly difficult to discern. Or consider the flowing water of the Ganges: if a little salt is cast into it, the salt is no longer discernible because of the vast quantity of water.

A treasure enclosed within a wall is difficult to see. Ghosts and spirits that habitually conceal their forms are difficult to see. A person without wisdom does not know how long his life will last and therefore cannot discern it.

A treasure within a wall is not discerned. In the same way, even if the person’s origin truly exists, it is exceedingly difficult to discern.

It is difficult to say that from this origin—whether dust or a hair—that which truly exists is indiscernible. Beyond ordinary human vision, however, a hair may be seen with the divine eye.

Likewise, what is beneath the ground may be seen with the divine eye. If one’s physical eyes cannot see even what is near, how could they see this? One cannot cross to the distant shore of the ocean, but one who reaches it sees it.

A person with keen eyes sees a hair. If a mustard seed is divided, keen eyes will see it. If a handful of salt is cast into the Ganges, only fish nearby will discern it.

A concealed treasure is discerned only by one with the divine eye. Although hidden ghosts and spirits can be seen by their own kind, a person with magical arts may also see them. Yet the span of life is not discerned, though one who knows another’s mind may understand it.

All the existents spoken of above are likewise difficult to see and cannot be discerned. Nevertheless, all may be discerned and seen, but no one can discern the origin of the person. It is like a concealed treasure that truly exists.

Because this lack of discernment has no such cause, it is said that what truly exists remains indiscernible. Why? Because no one can measure it.

The Snow Mountains truly exist, yet their entirety cannot be described. Why? Because they cannot be measured.

Again it is said: Is it because the Snow Mountains are known truly to exist, though they are difficult to count?

Answer: The Snow Mountains are seen to possess a quantity, though only in summary. Their true existence as the Snow Mountains can be discerned, but their measure is difficult to know.

Again it is said: If they can be discerned in summary, this is not clear. One understands the whole only in summary, while the measured quantity is truly unknown. Would this then constitute ignorance?

Again it is asked: Is it not true that the quantity cannot be discerned?

Answer: It is not true that it cannot be discerned. Why? As a scripture states, the Buddha taught: “Because an object has no real locus, its designation is not discerned.”

The Buddha told the bhikṣus: “When the oil lamp is extinguished, its charcoal and blackness are difficult to discern. Likewise, when Mount Sumeru, the great oceans, and the earth reach the end of the kalpa, and the conflagration of the kalpa arises and burns everything down even to the dust, this blackness can no longer be discerned.”

The Buddha taught that the origin is difficult to discern in the same way. Just as the extinguished oil lamp and the blackness of its soot do not truly exist and therefore cannot be discerned, so the origin is likewise difficult to discern.

Question: When a real object is present, why did the Buddha say that its designation cannot be discerned?

Answer: As stated in the Vinaya, a person held a vessel of alcohol in his hand and offered it to a bhikṣu. The bhikṣu truly did not know what it was; therefore, when he consumed it, he committed no offense. Thus, this has no such cause.

Again it is said: What is unreal cannot be discerned. If the origin truly existed, the Buddha would truly know that things arose from it and should not have said that it could not be discerned. Since the Buddha said it could not be discerned, does this mean that the origin does not truly exist?

Answer: This meaning is not so. The Buddha truly knew that it did not arise from that. When worldly people asked whether it was permanent, impermanent, and so forth, the Buddha never answered. Thus, there is no such cause. Again, this assertion is incorrect. Therefore, the origin is indiscernible. The Buddha said that it could not be discerned. Had the Buddha directly said there was no origin, that would have become the view of annihilation. Had the Buddha said there was an origin, that would have become the view of permanence. Neither assertion can be made; therefore, it should not be spoken thus. Hence, the Buddha said that it was indiscernible.

Question: If saṃsāra has an origin, this becomes the view of permanence; if it has no origin, this becomes the view of annihilation.

For a noble one, the root of saṃsāra has been utterly extinguished. If another origin then arose, one should understand that the matter is not like this. To say that another origin immediately arises becomes the view of annihilation. Because the origin of saṃsāra does not truly exist, it cannot be discerned. Why? Because saṃsāra revolves without end. The Buddha told the bhikṣus: “Even the origin upon which craving depends is difficult to discern. From this craving arises in connection with the past, and from this craving will arise in the future.” All is precisely because of this. If craving had no origin, saṃsāra would have no reality. That origin is difficult to discern.

Furthermore, because saṃsāra arises, if there were no saṃsāra, there would also be no nirvana. The Buddha told Ānanda: “When the five skandhas accompanied by defilements are utterly extinguished, this is called cessation; this is called nirvana.” The Buddha further told Ānanda: “Although nirvana is complete cessation, it has no origin; yet that which is born does not lose its root.” Therefore, the origin of saṃsāra does not truly possess an origin and cannot be discerned.

Furthermore, because causes and conditions combine and change, no person can take a self as the original cause. If the self were taken as the cause, saṃsāra would never end. Therefore, it is without origin.

Furthermore, one clearly remembers innumerable worlds of the past, as the Buddha taught concerning the past. Thus, if one wishes to understand those dharmas that arise in accordance with consciousness, this consciousness itself is truly innumerable. Its objects are likewise innumerable, and therefore knowledge of them is also innumerable. Hence, saṃsāra has no origin.

Furthermore, saṃsāra has no origin. If saṃsāra had an origin, the past that produced that origin would also exist. Yet here the past does not truly exist, and so the origin of birth cannot be discerned.

Furthermore, it is established through the transformation of craving. The Buddha said: “The origin of birth in the past cannot be discerned.” If saṃsāra had no origin, it would also have no designation; yet there is no dharma without a designation.

Again it is said: There is no dharma without a designation; what has no designation is unreal. Though it has no designation, “without designation” itself is its designation. Therefore, it has a designation, yet that designation has no reality.

As has been said: because the past origin truly exists, the origin itself is also real. This is not so; it is also incorrect. As stated, there is no dharma that possesses a designation.

If it were real, there would be a dharma possessing a designation; yet it would also have no designation and would be unreal. Why? Because it has no designation.

If no dharma were unreal, then this designation would also be unreal. When a dharma truly exists, its designation truly exists; when no dharma exists, its designation is also unreal. For this reason, the origin of birth does not truly exist.

Again it is said: If the real and the unreal were indeterminate, the unreal would become real and the real would become unreal. This is not so.

Furthermore, there are dharmas said to be concealed. No dharma is such that, without an initially manifest dharma, its reality or unreality could be seen. Because this is not concealed there, it is called real. It is like striking an object and producing a sound. This sound has no origin. Its cause of arising may be spoken of like the horn of a rabbit. Therefore, saṃsāra itself is this origin.

Again it is said: If saṃsāra has no origin, it also has no end. Would this beginningless and endless state then be no different from nirvana? This is not so. Although it truly has no origin, its characteristics arise through the transformations of the five skandhas. Therefore, it is impermanent. Because the cause changes, the effect likewise changes.

Question: If saṃsāra has no origin, then it should have no end. If it has no end, then saṃsāra itself would not exist. It would be like a forest with neither trees nor treetops: nothing would exist within it, and consequently there would be no forest. In the same way, would saṃsāra not exist?

Answer: No. Why? It is like a circular object, which has neither beginning nor end. An object without a beginning or end is like saṃsāra.

Again it is said: Though a circular object has neither beginning nor end, at times it exists and at times it does not. That single object may be destroyed, and saṃsāra is likewise.

Again it is said: There is concern that saṃsāra will never end. That which is grasped has no origin. All dharmas are empty. This is only a limited attachment, for things arise through the transformation of preceding causes. Therefore, they have no origin. When that cause is destroyed, saṃsāra comes to an end. When saṃsāra ends, that cause also ends. It is as previously stated concerning recollection of innumerable worlds of the past. Therefore, the Buddha taught that there is no origin. If saṃsāra had an origin, the origin of that saṃsāra would merely be the transformation of the skandhas, yet the skandhas themselves have no origin. This would become the view of permanence. In dependence upon those skandhas and this transformation, the Buddha said that sentient beings exist.

Again it is said: The successive transformation of the skandhas has no origin, and the successive transformation of sentient beings is likewise. Yet sentient beings cannot themselves successively transform. Why? Because the Buddha said that saṃsāra has no origin.

Question: If saṃsāra has no origin, why did the Buddha say that it cannot be discerned instead of directly saying that it has none?

Answer: If the Buddha had directly said that it has none, three kinds of wrong views could arise. The three wrong views are: first, did the self exist before the body was born? Second, does the self exist after birth? Third, is that self being born at present? Because doubt arises, the Buddha said it cannot be discerned. Thus, the Buddha’s teaching should be understood in this way. The Buddha taught that dharmas are of two kinds. What are the two? First, dharmas; second, sentient beings.

What are dharmas? They are as the Buddha said: “The cause of arising cannot be discerned; even craving, which is the origin, cannot be discerned.” This Dharma means that the origin of saṃsāra cannot be stated. What, then, are sentient beings? Those obscured by ignorance are called sentient beings. They revolve in saṃsāra, and the Dharma is taught for their sake. Because sentient beings revolve in saṃsāra, the Buddha teaches the Dharma for them.

Again it is said: When dharmas arrive in this way and this mind depends upon them to pass onward, the Buddha calls this a sentient being.

Question: Why did the Buddha say that the origin from which dharmas arise cannot be known?

Answer: The Buddha could not tell sentient beings that there was no origin.

Again it is said: When dharmas depend upon this and pass onward, the Buddha calls this a sentient being. At that time, dharmas may be said to be impermanent, but sentient beings cannot be said to be either permanent or impermanent. In the same way, the origin from which things arise may be spoken of or may remain unspoken. Therefore, it should be understood that saṃsāra has no origin.

Treatise of the Sāṃmitīya School

End of the Middle Fascicle