四教義 5.3

5.3

Sixth, elucidating the contemplation methods of mindfulness: there are three kinds of contemplation methods of mindfulness. First, regarding mindfulness of dharmic nature, the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "Mindfulness of dharmic nature has the nature of wisdom; wisdom that contemplates the body is mindfulness of the body; feeling, mind, and dharmas are likewise." Commentators differ: some merely take the mental factor of wisdom as the nature of wisdom, which is mindfulness of dharmic nature. If following the Master of Nanyue's explanation: "Contemplating the rational nature of the five aggregates is called mindfulness of dharmic nature." Hence the verse in the Zāxīn says: "This body has the mark of impurity, its true nature is constantly empty; all feelings, mind, and dharmas are also spoken of in this way." Contemplating the four applications of mindfulness considered separately to shatter the four inversions is of two kinds: first, shattering craving; second, shattering views. First, regarding mindfulness of dharmic nature that shatters craving: no living beings whatsoever fail to be cravenly attached to retribution, to the five aggregates, and to the external circumstantial retribution. First, the contemplation of mindfulness of the body: one contemplates that this internal body has five kinds of impurity: first, impurity of the place of birth; second, impurity of the seed; third, impurity of its own characteristics; fourth, impurity of its own nature; fifth, ultimate impurity. First, contemplating impurity of the place of birth: dwelling for ten months inside a woman's womb between the raw and the cooked viscera. Second, impurity of the seed: taking another's semen and blood compounded together as the seed. Third, impurity of its own characteristics: all the grime and grease of the body, overflowing from the nine apertures. Fourth, impurity of its own nature: contemplating the impurity of the body like a clear-sighted person opening a granary and seeing grains and millets—contemplating it as filled with the thirty-six impure substances. Fifth, ultimate impurity: when this body dies, it bloats, rots and decomposes, with worms, pus, and blood exposed—it is deeply repulsive. If one sees the five kinds of impurity, it shatters the inversion of purity; this is called internal mindfulness of the body. Contemplating the external body and both internal and external body is also like this. Second, mindfulness of feeling: one contemplates that internally there are the six sense organs and externally there are the six dusts; because organ and dust join, the six consciousnesses arise; the six consciousnesses give rise to three feelings: painful feeling, pleasurable feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling. One contemplates painful feeling as the mark of the suffering of suffering; one contemplates pleasurable feeling as the mark of the suffering of decay; one contemplates neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling as the mark of the suffering of conditioning. If the three feelings produced by the mind sense organ are all equally suffering, it shatters the inversion of pleasure; this is called internal mindfulness of feeling. External feeling and both internal and external feeling are also like this. Third, mindfulness of the mind: one contemplates that this mental consciousness is conditioned and, belonging to causes and conditions, is impermanent; previously non-existent and now existent, now existent and later non-existent, arising and ceasing from instant to instant, and therefore impermanent; it shatters the inversion of permanence; this is called internal mindfulness of the mind. External mind and both internal and external mind are also like this. Fourth, mindfulness of dharmas: one contemplates that the two internal aggregates of perception and volition, being a harmony of causes and conditions, have no self-nature; when arising, it is only dharmas arising; when ceasing, it is only dharmas ceasing; there is no person, no self, no sentient being, and no life span—the sixteen views are all unattainable; it shatters the inversion of self; this is called internal mindfulness of dharmas. External dharmas and both internal and external dharmas are also like this. This is as explained in the Chengshi and the Dà zhìdù lùn: "This is the primary gateway to mindfulness of dharmic nature." Second, regarding mindfulness of dharmic nature that shatters views: this is contemplating the defiled and morally indeterminate five aggregates of the two views of the self and extremes—the self identical to the aggregates, the self apart from the aggregates, the self within the aggregates, and the aggregates within the self; upon examining, a self cannot be found; shattering the twenty kinds of view of self is called holy practice. Next, separately contemplating the five aggregates of extreme views: what is called mindfulness of the bodily nature is the nature of form. Form, whether coarse or fine, is entirely impure; coarse form is the human body and world; fine form reaches the extreme of fine dust of neighboring emptiness. If one sees coarse and fine form as permanent, this view entirely relies on form. If one sees coarse and fine form as impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these views all rely on form. Permanence is the view of existence; impermanence is the view of non-existence; both permanent and impermanent is the view of both existence and non-existence; neither permanent nor impermanent is the view of neither existence nor non-existence. These four views all rely on form; they are the form aggregate of the four extreme views. If one does not know this form aggregate of extreme views, producing conceptual understanding and attachment, frivolous discourse and contention, then from views arise all afflictions and entanglements; also, because of the entanglements, one performs all evil karmas, or because of the entanglements, one performs all good karmas; karma and entanglements revolve in the three realms and the twenty-five states of existence through boundless birth and death. What is meant by not knowing the characteristics of the form aggregate of extreme views? If outsiders, being blind and in darkness, naturally do not recognize the defiled form of extreme views, each says: "This is true, the rest is false speech," reckoning it to be the permanence, pleasure, self, and purity of nirvāṇa. This is not worth speaking of; however, in the final age, people who study and sit in meditation in the Buddha's Dharma also mostly stray into this form of extreme views. Why is this? As the Abhidharma masters say: "Abhidharma means attaining the path through seeing existence," analyzing form down to the fine dust of neighboring emptiness that cannot be further broken down, and seeing that this fine dust has real principle, they attain the path. Now I say that this is still an extreme view, a view of existence, a defiled form. If one generates understanding based on the view of existence, giving rise to entanglements and karma, revolving in birth and death, the matter is as spoken before—what does it have to do with the path? Hence the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, entering the Abhidharma, one falls into existence." Furthermore, all masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra say: "Seeing the fine form of neighboring emptiness as existent is a contemplation to train the mind; it cannot attain the path. If one analyzes this fine dust of neighboring emptiness into emptiness, one attains the emptiness of real dharmas; because one sees emptiness, one can attain the path." Now I say: "If one sees the form of neighboring emptiness as empty, this is merely an empty view, an extreme view, a defiled form aggregate." If seeing this, one generates understanding, giving rise to entanglements and karma, revolving in birth and death, the matter is as spoken before—what does it have to do with the path? Hence the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, if one enters the gate of emptiness, one falls into non-existence." The Piṭaka [of Kātyāyana] says: "Seeing the dust-form of neighboring emptiness as both existent and non-existent allows entry to the path"; its error is the same as spoken before. Since that treatise has not come to this land and there is no treatise to propagate, there is no need to set it out in full detail. However, the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If one does not attain the skillful means of prajñā, one falls into existence and non-existence." But some Sanlun masters say: "The path is neither existent nor non-existent; why must the Abhidharma attain the path by seeing the fine form of neighboring emptiness as existent? And why would the Chengshi suddenly say that one attains the path by seeing the fine form of neighboring emptiness as empty?" Now I ask: if so, does seeing neither empty nor existent attain the path or not? If you say it attains the path, why does the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā say: "If one says neither existent nor non-existent, this is called the doctrine of fools"? This is the defiled form of the extreme view of neither existence nor non-existence—what does it have to do with the path? The answer is: using neither existence nor non-existence shatters existence and non-existence; since existence and non-existence are shattered, how could neither existence nor non-existence remain? The correct path is ultimately pure, without preaching and without pointing out. A question asks: if so, how does that differ from Dīrghanakha and Laozi's explanation of the ineffable? Now our school's explanation of mindfulness of the bodily nature is not like that. If one does not see the principle of the four truths in the defiled form aggregate of neither existence nor non-existence, it is called the doctrine of fools. If one knows that this is defiled form, it is called mindfulness of the bodily nature, which opens the gateway of the three applications of mindfulness, the gateway of the four applications of mindfulness, and opens the gateway of the thirty-seven factors [of awakening]. Through the gateway of the thirty-seven factors, seeing the four truths of arising and ceasing, one attains quiescent nirvāṇa; this is attaining the path through seeing existence, which is called not moving among all views while practicing the thirty-seven factors. If one knows that the defiled form of neither existence nor non-existence is like an illusion, like a transformation, ultimately unattainable, and originally non-arisen, this is the mindfulness of the body explained in the Mahāyāna, complete with all Buddha-dharmas, as spoken in the Dà zhìdù lùn. This sūtra says: "Not moving among all views while practicing the thirty-seven factors—this is quiet sitting." Furthermore, why is it necessary to discard neither existence nor non-existence and take the exhausted, pure ineffable as attaining the path? Hence the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra says: "Just as if someone wishes to discard space, they ultimately do not separate from space; if they wish to seek space far away, they ultimately do not find space." If one does not attain the path of the half and full [teachings] within seeing neither existence nor non-existence, and also does not know the path of the half and full [teachings] within the exhausted, pure ineffable, then even though one's understanding and wisdom are clear, it is ultimately worldly wisdom and intellectual cleverness, failing to avoid entanglements and karma revolving in birth and death, the same as spoken before. If one knows that the two views of self and extremes, the four views, and the sixty-two views are all defiled form aggregates, this is contemplating form as impure to shatter the inversion of purity; it is called mindfulness of the body. Second, mindfulness of feeling: if one contemplates feeling as permanent, this view relies on feeling; if feeling is impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these four views all rely on feeling; these are the feeling aggregate of the four extreme views. Each feeling has the three feelings; the three feelings are all suffering, shattering the inversion of pleasure; this is called the contemplation of mindfulness of feeling. Third, mindfulness of the mind: if one contemplates the mind as permanent, this view relies on consciousness; if the mind is impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these views all rely on consciousness; these are the consciousness aggregate of the four extreme views. The four views of the consciousness aggregate—the four views are all impermanent, shattering the inversion of permanence; this is called mindfulness of the mind. Fourth, mindfulness of dharmas: if one contemplates the two aggregates of perception and volition as permanent, this view relies on perception and volition; if impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent, these views all rely on perception and volition; these are the two aggregates of perception and volition of the four extreme views. The four views of the two aggregates of perception and volition are all without self, shattering the inversion of self; this is called the contemplation of mindfulness of dharmas. These four applications of mindfulness of nature contemplate the retribution five aggregates, the single and compound sets of the two views of self and extremes, down to the ineffable defiled and morally indeterminate five aggregates. If one shatters the four inversions, one shatters the fourteen unanswerable questions, and subdues the sixty-two views, the eighty-eight entangling afflictions, and all good and unwholesome karmas of birth and death in the twenty-five states of existence arising due to views. Furthermore, these views are not necessarily all generated by outsiders; if within the Buddha's Dharma those who study and sit in meditation give rise to various views and disputes over right and wrong, they are all the defiled five aggregates of the two views of self and extremes. Giving rise to such views and frivolous discourses shatters the eye of wisdom so that they do not see reality. If without awareness and knowledge, one cannot use the contemplation of mindfulness of dharmic nature to contemplate these five aggregates and shatter the four inversions, then giving rise to views, one immediately commits all evil karmas. Or if one uses a mind of views to cultivate good, this is an external path. This meaning is difficult to see; those in the Buddha's Dharma who study and sit in meditation should reflect on it carefully. If one can be aware and know, using mindfulness of dharmic nature to contemplate as before and shatter the four inversions, one can generate the stage of warmth. Hence the Dà zhìdù lùn says: "If among conditioned dharmas one does not attain correct mindfulness, that one could generate the stage of warmth is impossible. If among conditioned dharmas one attains correct mindfulness, that one would not generate the stage of warmth is impossible." The various Dīrghanakha brāhmaṇas, clever and learned, claimed that all dharmas can be refuted, all doctrines can be shattered, and not a single dharma can be attained, stating of themselves that they attained the true mark of all dharmas, yet they were still deluded about this mindfulness. Therefore, the Tathāgata used mindfulness of dharmic nature considered separately to go and question him, immediately shattering his craving and conceit, so that he attained the purity of the Dharma eye. One should know that mindfulness of dharmic nature considered separately is the essential gateway for entering the path. If a person of sharp faculties cultivates this mindfulness of dharmic nature and their contemplation and understanding are clear, they can generate the true untainted [state]; hence the Buddha exhorted the monks: "Rely on mindfulness to cultivate the path." If in the final age those who sit in meditation and deliver sermons study this meaning, then the Abhidharma's "attaining the path through seeing existence" will have its meaning expressed. If one is deluded about this, even if one speaks of neither existence nor non-existence as ultimately ineffable, it is entirely the doctrine of fools, the matter being as spoken above. The error of Dīrghanakha lay precisely here. A question asks: if mindfulness of dharmic nature is so profound and transcendent, why do sūtras and treatises not state it in this way? The answer is: when the Buddha was in the world, people's faculties were sharp and keen; after his passing, during the True Dharma and Semblance Dharma ages, there were still people who attained the path—why would sūtras and treatises need to grab them by the ear? It was already concealed within their palms. Furthermore, have all the sūtras and treatises of the Western land crossed over to here?