The Nyāsa of Views: A Catalogue of Wrong Views

[Views Aggregate, Chapter Eight, Nyāsa of Views, Part One of Part Five — 見蘊第八中見納息第五之一.] Whoever holds this view, that there is no giving — and so on, as stated at length. Question: why is this treatise composed? Answer: in order to explain the view-tenets spoken of in the sūtras, so that they may be understood and abandoned. Why is this? Because, among all that gives rise to great attachment within birth-and-death and draws one toward great meaninglessness, and among all that serves as a great basis for grasping, nothing surpasses the view-tenets. These are explained at length in the Five Things Section of the Cognition Aggregate. Whoever holds this view — that there is no giving, no delighting in giving, no sacrificial offering, no excellent or evil conduct — this is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin. 'No giving' and the rest are as explained above. That it is a wrong view reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin reveals its antidote — that is, once forbearance and cognition regarding the truth of origin have arisen, all the improper deliberation, improper discrimination, distorted views, and unbalanced grasping belonging to it are thereupon permanently cut off, extinguished, and eliminated. Furthermore, since this view operates within the domain of origin, it is cut off precisely at the moment of seeing origin — just as dew on the tip of a blade of grass dries away the moment the sun rises; this is likewise so. 'There is no fruit of excellent or evil conduct' — this is a wrong view that denies the fruit, to be abandoned by seeing suffering. That it is a wrong view reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing suffering reveals its antidote — that is, once forbearance and cognition regarding the truth of suffering have arisen, all the improper deliberation, improper discrimination, distorted views, and unbalanced grasping belonging to it are thereupon permanently cut off, extinguished, and eliminated.

Furthermore, since this view operates within the domain of suffering, it is cut off precisely at the moment of seeing suffering — just as dew on the tip of a blade of grass dries away the moment the sun rises; this is likewise so.

Yet this only explains the intrinsic nature and antidote of this view, without explaining what gives rise to it. What, then, gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain non-Buddhist ascetics who observe directly in the world that some who kill living beings live long, while some who abstain from killing die young; that some who steal grow rich, while some who abstain from stealing become poor;

that some who are stingy grow prosperous, while some who delight in giving grow poor; that some who injure and torment others are healthy and at ease, while some who do not torment others suffer much illness. Having observed such contradictory circumstances, they then reflect: there is no giving, no delighting in giving, and so on up through no fruit of excellent or evil conduct — for, if such fruits existed, then all who kill living beings ought to die young, and, up through, those who do not torment others ought to be healthy and at ease; but what is directly observed contradicts this, and so it is known with certainty that there is no giving, and so on, as stated at length. Yet these ascetics, not properly understanding that the fruit of excellent and evil conduct may be near or far off, reason incorrectly about what is directly observed and give rise to this view. Some say: these ascetics attain a mundane concentration and see only a brief span of time, not knowing the full course of cause and effect from beginning to end; observing some who commit evil yet attain rebirth in heaven, and some who perform good deeds yet fall into an evil destiny, they then reflect: there is no giving, no delighting in giving, and so on, as stated at length. Others further say: there are certain ascetics who arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely by following the teaching of evil companions, and so say that there is no giving, and so on, as stated at length.

'There is no this world, no other world, no spontaneously born beings' — this is a wrong view that either denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin, or denies the fruit, to be abandoned by seeing suffering. Question: it may well make sense to deny the other world, since it is not directly observed — but why deny this world, which is directly observed? Answer: these ascetics, blinded by ignorance, deny even what is directly observed; one should not reproach them for this, since the ignorant and the blind fall into pits all the same. Others further say: these ascetics deny only the causal relation, not the substance of the dharmas themselves — 'no this world' means that this world is not the cause of the other world, or that this world is not the fruit of the other world; 'no other world' means that the other world is not the cause of this world, or that the other world is not the fruit of this world. As for 'no spontaneously born beings': there are certain ascetics who say that the birth of every sentient being comes only from present semen and blood and the like, and that there is no such thing as sudden birth without a cause — just as, when a sprout grows, it must depend on a seed, water, soil, and season, and there is no such thing as growth without a cause; therefore it is certain that there are no spontaneously born beings. This either denies the karma that brings about spontaneous birth, or denies the spontaneous birth that such karma brings about. Others further say: spontaneously born beings mean the intermediate existence — 'no this world, no other world' denies rebirth-existence, and 'no spontaneously born beings' denies the intermediate existence. There are certain ascetics who say the intermediate existence does not exist, holding that one passes only from this world directly to that world, with no third world to be found in between. This either denies the karma that brings about the intermediate existence, or denies the intermediate existence that such karma brings about, or denies that the intermediate existence is the cause of rebirth-existence, or denies that the intermediate existence is the fruit of death-existence. That it is a wrong view reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin, or by seeing suffering, reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. 'No father, no mother' — this is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin. Question: father and mother are directly observed everywhere in the world — why, then, do they deny them? Answer: these ascetics, blinded by ignorance, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics deny the karma of father and mother that brings about a child, not their substance — they hold that a father and mother, acting solely out of a mind of lustful attachment, do not act for the sake of a child; rather, on account of the mere combination of semen and blood as condition, that kind of being spontaneously arises, not that the father and mother possess any karma that brings about the child — just as, on account of damp leaves and dung and the like, various insects arise, yet the damp leaves and the like do not possess any karma that brings about the insect; this is likewise so. It is for this reason that these ascetics have a verse that says —

'When a man and woman, minds inflamed, come together, and the woman, when the time is right, is without illness, I thereby come to exist of myself — what, then, do they do for me?' Others further say: these ascetics deny the meaning of 'father' and 'mother,' not their substance — just as, on account of damp leaves and dung and the like, insects arise, yet the leaves and the like are neither father nor mother to the insect, since it arises solely from that impure matter as its cause — so too here: by what reason, then, should those alone who give rise to a being be said to hold a weighty debt of kindness and be named father and mother? It is for this reason that these ascetics say there is no father and mother. That it is a wrong view reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. This only explains its intrinsic nature and antidote, without explaining what gives rise to it. What, then, gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who, when heavy rain falls from the sky, observe the floating bubbles on the water and then reflect: from where do these come, and to where do they vanish? — they merely arise suddenly and vanish suddenly on account of the water and rain. In just the same way, they hold, sentient beings are born when conditions combine, and die when conditions disperse, not coming from a former life into this one, nor going from this life into a later one; and so they declare with certainty that there is no this world and no other world. They further observe that, in the world, father and mother give birth to a child, and water and soil give rise to a sprout, and everything observed arises from the combination of conditions; they then reflect: where, then, could there be any spontaneously born being at all?

They further observe insects arising from damp leaves and the like, as explained at length before. Yet these ascetics do not know that sentient and non-sentient kinds of birth are distinct, that the four kinds of birth-beings depend on unequal conditions, and that internal and external dharmas differ in the nature of their conditions; and so, from a few superficially similar cases, they reason incorrectly and give rise to these various views. Others further say: these ascetics attain a mundane concentration and observe certain beings passing away from a higher realm or another world-system to be reborn here, or passing away from here to be reborn in a higher realm or another world-system; observing this class of beings, they do not perceive where they came from or where they are going, and so give rise to this view that there is no this world and no other world. Further, because the concentration they have attained is coarse and shallow, when they observe the passing away and rebirth of beings they perceive only the rebirth-existence, and, because the intermediate body between them is subtle, they do not perceive it; on this basis they declare that there are no spontaneously born beings. Further, by the power of concentration, they observe certain beings who come to be their father or mother from having been an enemy, or who come to be their father or mother from having been a wife, child, brother, or sister, and even beings who come to be their father or mother from having had the body of a camel, donkey, dog, or other such mixed kind — and, from being father and mother, they in turn come to take on that same kind of form; they then reflect: this is just like a traveler's inn — what certainty can there be in it? On this basis they declare that there is no father and no mother. Others further say: these ascetics arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely by following the teaching of evil companions, and so say that there is no this world, and so on, as stated at length.

Whoever holds this view — that there are no arhats in the world — this is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. That it is a wrong view that denies the path reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing the path reveals its antidote — that is, once forbearance and cognition regarding the truth of the path have arisen, all the improper deliberation, improper discrimination, distorted views, and unbalanced grasping belonging to it are thereupon permanently cut off, extinguished, and eliminated. Furthermore, since this view operates within the domain of the path, it is cut off precisely at the moment of seeing the path — just as dew on the tip of a blade of grass dries away the moment the sun rises; this is likewise so. 'There is no proper attainment' — this is a wrong view that denies cessation, to be abandoned by seeing cessation, since proper attainment means nirvāṇa, which is what the uncontaminated path is meant to attain. That it is a wrong view that denies cessation reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing cessation reveals its antidote — that is, once forbearance and cognition regarding the truth of cessation have arisen, all the improper deliberation, improper discrimination, distorted views, and unbalanced grasping belonging to it are thereupon permanently cut off, extinguished, and eliminated. Furthermore, since this view operates within the domain of cessation, it is cut off precisely at the moment of seeing cessation — just as dew on the tip of a blade of grass dries away the moment the sun rises; this is likewise so. 'There is no proper conduct in this world or the other, such that, in this very life, one knows for oneself, directly realizes, and dwells having attained: my births are exhausted, the holy life has been established, what was to be done has been done, and there is no further existence to be undergone — knowing this truly' — this is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. 'No proper conduct in this world or the other' means that they deny the four kinds of proper conduct — namely, painful and slow, and so forth — this denies the path of the trainee, while the rest denies the path beyond training. That it is a wrong view that denies the path reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing the path reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. This only explains the intrinsic nature and antidote of this view, without explaining what gives rise to it. What, then, gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who observe that arhats grow old, fall ill, and die, and undergo suffering just like other beings, and so declare that there are no arhats in the world — that is, they deny that the dharma of arhatship exists at all. Further, hearing that in nirvāṇa the faculties are permanently extinguished, they then reflect that this must be suffering; further hearing that in nirvāṇa all formations are stilled, they then reflect that this must be mere non-existence. Further, observing that the physical appearance and eating habits of the noble ones are the same as those of other beings, they then hold that they possess no noble path at all. Yet these ascetics do not know that the noble ones' contaminated body differs from their uncontaminated body, and that the tranquil bliss of nirvāṇa is neither suffering nor mere non-existence, and it is for this reason that they give rise to these various distinct wrong views. Some say: these ascetics attain a mundane concentration but are unable to perceive the noble path or nirvāṇa, and so declare that there are no arhats, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely by following the teaching of evil companions, and so declare that there are no arhats in the world, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: here one should speak of a certain ascetic's matter — that matter is precisely what gives rise to this view. Whoever holds this view — up through, that a living being with a life-force, once dead, is utterly broken apart and ceases to exist, this body of a person made of the four great elements — explained at length up through this — is a view of extremism subsumed under annihilationism, to be abandoned by seeing suffering. Here, 'up through, that a living being with a life-force, once dead, is utterly broken apart and ceases to exist' means that they grasp at a real self, named the life-force — this life-force, they hold, exists continuously up until this present life has not yet died, but, once dead, does not continue any further, and this is called being utterly broken apart and ceasing to exist.

As for 'this body of a person made of the four great elements': although the body they speak of is in fact constituted of other dharmas as well, they speak only of the four great elements because these are coarse and manifest. As for 'at death, the earth-body returns to earth, the water-body returns to water, the fire-body returns to fire, the wind-body returns to wind, and the faculties, lacking the great elements, revolve into empty space': they hold that, when a being dies, the internal great elements of the body return to the external earth and the rest, and, the faculties having no great elements to depend upon, thereupon revolve into empty space — just as, when a tree falls, the birds fly off into the sky. This view of extremism is subsumed under eternalism, to be abandoned by seeing suffering, since it grasps at what belongs to a self as permanently abiding. As for 'the bier makes a fifth': this means a bier four and a half cubits long, borne by four men, used to carry a corpse — hence it is said that the bier makes a fifth. Carrying that corpse, they go to abandon it in the charnel ground — that is, the place where bodies are given up, or the place where corpses are burned, is named the charnel ground. 'What is not yet burned can still be recognized' means that, up until it is burned, its distinguishing features can still be seen; once burned, it becomes ash. 'What remains are bones the color of a pigeon' means that, once burned, it becomes mere ash and cinders. Here, as for the word 'burned': if it means burning firewood and the like, this is right view; if it means the very fire that burns, this is mistaken cognition, not a view; if it means burning contaminated karma, this is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin; if it means burning uncontaminated karma, this is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path.

'The foolish praise giving, the wise praise receiving' — the foolish means those without wisdom, or of bad discernment; the wise means those with wisdom and good discernment. These ascetics say that the foolish praise the practice of giving, while the wise praise the receiving of gifts. Yet the Buddha, the pratyekabuddhas, and the noble disciples — all of whom possess wisdom — praise the practice of giving; these ascetics dismiss them as foolish, and this is precisely to deny that there is any dharma of one who has attained wisdom. This is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. 'Whoever holds the view that all discourse is empty and false speech, up through, that both the foolish and the wise, once dead, are utterly broken apart and cease to exist' —

those who teach that there is a future life are called teachers of discourse; these ascetics dismiss all such teaching as empty, false speech, saying that both the foolish and the wise, once dead, are altogether broken apart and cease to exist. Yet the Buddha, the pratyekabuddhas, and the noble disciples teach that there is a future life; these ascetics dismiss this as falsehood, and this is precisely to deny that there is any dharma of one who speaks truthfully. This is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. That this view of extremism is subsumed under annihilationism reveals its intrinsic nature;

although there are other wrong views mixed in here as well, since what is chiefly revealed is being utterly broken apart and ceasing to exist, it is subsumed under annihilationism. That it is to be abandoned by seeing suffering —

reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. This only explains its intrinsic nature and antidote, without explaining what gives rise to it. What, then, gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who do not recall the prior limit and do not perceive the later limit, and so hold that every sentient being takes conception in this present life as its beginning and death as its final end; further, since none of the dead ever return, they say that a living being with a life-force, once dead, is utterly broken apart and ceases to exist, just like grass and trees, without any future life. Some say: these ascetics attain a mundane concentration and observe certain beings passing away from here to be reborn in a higher realm or another world-system; observing this class of beings, not knowing where they have gone, they then say: a living being with a life-force, once dead —

and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics arrive at this claim not through any other matter, but solely because of the mistaken instruction of evil companions, and so say: a living being with a life-force — and so on, as stated at length. Whoever holds the view that there is no cause and no condition by which sentient beings become defiled, that sentient beings are defiled neither by cause nor by condition — this is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin. That it is a wrong view that denies causation reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who observe directly in the world that some who dwell in forest hermitages nonetheless become defiled, while some who live in cities and towns do not give rise to defilement; they then reflect that there is no cause and no condition by which sentient beings become defiled, that sentient beings are defiled neither by cause nor by condition — for, if there were, then those dwelling in forest hermitages ought not to become defiled, while those living in cities and towns ought all to become defiled, yet what is directly observed contradicts this; therefore, they conclude with certainty, there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Yet it is on account of three factors that sentient beings become defiled: first, the power of cause; second, the power of preliminary effort; and third, the power of external circumstance.

Those who dwell in forest hermitages, although lacking external circumstance, give rise to various defilements on account of the power of cause and the power of preliminary effort; those who live in cities and towns, although possessing both cause and external circumstance, do not give rise to defilement for want of the power of preliminary effort. These ascetics, unable to penetrate this matter, give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics, having attained a coarse and shallow mundane concentration, observe sentient beings giving rise to various defilements, yet do not perceive the distinctions among their causes and conditions, and so give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely on account of evil companions, giving rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition by which sentient beings become purified, that sentient beings are purified neither by cause nor by condition. This is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. That it is a wrong view that denies the path reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing the path reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains —

there are certain ascetics who observe directly in the world that some who live in cities and towns nonetheless attain purity, while some who dwell in forest hermitages do not attain purity; they then reflect that there is no cause and no condition by which sentient beings become purified, that sentient beings are purified neither by cause nor by condition — for, if there were, then all who dwell in forest hermitages ought to attain purity, while all who live in cities and towns ought not to attain purity, yet what is directly observed contradicts this; therefore, they conclude with certainty, there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Yet it is on account of three factors that sentient beings become purified: first, the power of cause; second, the power of preliminary effort; and third, the power of condition. Those who dwell in forest hermitages, although possessing cause and condition, may fail to attain purity for want of preliminary effort; those who live in cities and towns, although perhaps lacking in condition, may attain purity on account of the power of cause and preliminary effort. These ascetics, unable to penetrate this matter, give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics, having attained a coarse and shallow mundane concentration, observe sentient beings attaining purity, yet do not perceive the causes and conditions by which they attain it, and so give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say —

these ascetics arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely on account of evil companions.

'There is no cause and no condition by which sentient beings lack wisdom and vision; sentient beings lack wisdom and vision neither by cause nor by condition' — this is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin. That it is a wrong view that denies causation reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who observe directly in the world that, without undertaking any effort to seek a lack of wisdom and vision, certain beings are naturally without wisdom and vision; they then reflect that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length — for, if there were, then those who undertake effort to seek a lack of wisdom and vision ought to give rise to that lack, while those who do not seek it ought not to give rise to it, yet what is directly observed contradicts this; therefore, they conclude with certainty, there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Yet it is on account of three factors that sentient beings lack wisdom and vision: first, delighting in attachment to the store; second, harboring much doubt and confusion about what is to be done; and third, lacking modesty and reverence toward other beings. Some say: it is on account of five factors — three as explained before, a fourth, failing to diligently seek it, and a fifth, lacking the proper means. These ascetics, not properly understanding this matter, give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics, having attained a coarse and shallow mundane concentration, observe sentient beings lacking wisdom and vision, yet do not perceive the distinctions among their causes and conditions, and so give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say —

these ascetics arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely on account of evil companions, giving rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition by which sentient beings attain wisdom and vision,

that sentient beings attain wisdom and vision neither by cause nor by condition. This is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. That it is a wrong view that denies the path reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing the path reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains:

there are certain ascetics who observe directly in the world that some, though seeking wisdom and vision and undertaking great effort, do not attain it, while some, without undertaking any effort at all, do attain it; they then reflect that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length — for, if there were, then those who undertake effort to seek wisdom and vision ought to attain it, while those who do not undertake such effort ought not to attain it, yet what is directly observed contradicts this; therefore, they conclude with certainty, there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Yet it is on account of four factors that sentient beings attain wisdom and vision: first, properly grasping the term; second, properly grasping the meaning; third, delighting in extensive investigation; and fourth, delighting in discerning what is and is not reasonable. These ascetics, not properly understanding this matter, declare that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length.

Some say: these ascetics, having attained a coarse and shallow mundane concentration, observe sentient beings attaining superior wisdom and vision, yet do not perceive the distinctions among their causes and conditions, and so give rise to this view that there is no cause and no condition, and so on, as stated at length. Some say: these ascetics arrive at this view neither through direct observation nor through concentration, but solely on account of evil companions.

Whoever holds this view — that there is no strength, no diligence, no strength and diligence, no vigor, no dominance, no vigor and dominance, no self-agency, no other-agency, no self-and-other agency; that every sentient being, every kind of birth, every species is without strength, without mastery, without diligence, without dominance, and that all is fixed by destiny, combination, inherent nature, and transformation, undergoing suffering and pleasure in the six superior classes of rebirth. If this denies contaminated strength and diligence and the rest, it is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin; if it denies uncontaminated strength and diligence and the rest, it is a wrong view that denies the path, to be abandoned by seeing the path. Here, strength, diligence, vigor, and dominance are one in substance but differ in meaning, all referring to the distinct efficacies of dharmas — strength means power, in the sense of being difficult to overcome; diligence means the sense of setting out toward a goal; vigor means the sense of forceful, heroic effort; dominance means the sense of being able to subdue others. These ascetics hold that dharmas possess no such meanings at all — this is a wholesale denial of the efficacy of dharmas. 'No self-agency' denies the efficacy of the dharmas of one's own continuum; 'no other-agency' denies the efficacy of the dharmas of another's continuum; 'no self-and-other agency' denies both together — this is the position of the naked ascetic Kāśyapa, as will be explained later. 'Every sentient being' means every conscious kind; 'every kind of birth' means the very same sentient beings, named living creatures; 'every species' means the very same living creatures continuing as a species. Strength, mastery, and the rest are likewise one in substance but differ in meaning, referring to the distinct efficacies of sentient beings — mastery means the sense of being able to command others; strength and the rest are as explained before. These ascetics hold that sentient beings possess no such distinct merits. 'Fixed' means determined, in the sense of being simply so by nature; 'combination' means coming together, in the sense of a chance meeting of conditions; 'inherent nature' means one's original nature; 'transformation' means change. These ascetics hold that sentient beings have precisely this rationale — being simply so by nature, a chance meeting of conditions, an original nature undergoing change — and, on this basis alone, undergo suffering and pleasure in the six superior classes of rebirth, not on account of possessing any strength, mastery, or the like capable of undergoing suffering and pleasure — the six superior classes of rebirth will be explained later. That this denies causation, or denies the path, reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin, or by seeing the path, reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who observe directly in the world that, in seeking wealth and status, some exert extensive effort yet are unable to attain it, while some, without seeking it at all, attain it naturally; they then reflect that there is no strength, no diligence, and so on, as stated at length — for, if there were, then seeking ought to result in attainment, and not seeking ought to result in non-attainment, yet what is directly observed contradicts this, and so they conclude that there is none. Yet worldly merit and happiness necessarily come from karma, whether fixed or not fixed, performed at an earlier time; those who exert effort yet fail to attain it do so because they lack that earlier karma, while those who attain it without exerting effort do so because they possess that earlier, determined cause. These ascetics, not properly understanding this matter, then declare that there is no strength, no diligence, and so on, as stated at length. That this arises from concentration and from evil companions should be understood along the lines explained before. The earlier Miscellaneous Aggregation Chapter, in speaking of the locus of distortion, addressed only the denial of the contaminated cause, and so it is to be abandoned by seeing origin; here, it addresses generally the denial of both the contaminated and uncontaminated cause, and so it is to be abandoned by seeing both origin and the path. Whoever holds this view — that one may act, cause others to act, cook, cause others to cook, harm, cause others to harm, and kill living beings —

steal, commit sexual misconduct, knowingly speak falsely, drink intoxicating liquor, break through walls, undo bindings, seize everything one can, waylay travelers, and cut off roads; who harm villages, cities, and kingdoms, slaughtering their inhabitants with sword and disc-weapon, subjugating the entire earth, cutting apart and dismembering all its beings and heaping them together into a single mass of flesh — one should know that by such acts there is no evil and no cause of evil; and who, cutting down and beating people on the south bank of the Ganges, or giving charity and cultivating merit on the north bank, hold that by such acts there is no demerit or merit, nor any cause of demerit or merit, and that giving, kind speech, beneficial conduct, and cooperation extended to every being carry no merit at all — this is a wrong view that denies causation, to be abandoned by seeing origin. Here, 'no evil' means that evil has no intrinsic nature of its own; 'no cause of evil' means that it is incapable of yielding an evil fruit; 'no demerit or merit, nor any cause of demerit or merit' should be understood likewise. As for 'cutting down and beating on the south bank of the Ganges': this is because the south bank of the Ganges has many shrines to yakṣas, where beings are killed as sacrifice; as for 'giving charity and cultivating merit on the north bank': this is because the north bank of the Ganges has many shrines to the gods, where charity is given and merit is cultivated. That it is a wrong view that denies causation reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing origin reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who observe directly in the world that some who commit evil deeds enjoy pleasure, while some who cultivate good deeds meet with much sorrow and suffering; they then reflect that acting and causing others to act, and so on up through, there is no merit at all — for, if there were, then committing evil ought to bring suffering, and cultivating good ought to bring pleasure, yet what is directly observed contradicts this, and so they conclude with certainty that acting and causing others to act, and so on, carry no merit at all. Yet the fruit of good and evil karma may be near or far off, and these ascetics, not properly understanding this, give rise to this view. That this arises from concentration and from evil companions should be understood along the lines explained before.

Whoever holds this view — that these seven bodies of a person are neither made nor cause anything to be made, neither transformed nor cause anything to be transformed; that they cannot be harmed, abide permanently and unmoved like the iṣīkā reed, undergo no change, and do not touch one another; what are the seven? Earth, water, fire, wind, suffering, pleasure, and the life-force. These seven bodies of a person are not made, and so on, up through, abide unmoved like the iṣīkā reed — whether by demerit, merit, both, suffering, pleasure, or both, they cannot be changed, nor can they be made to touch or obstruct one another. Even if a man were to cut off another man's head, this would not be called harming any living being in the world; whether moving or standing still, though a blade might pass through the interstice between the seven bodies, it does not harm the life-force. Here there is no one who harms and nothing harmed, no one who strikes and nothing struck, no manifest action and no locus for such action. This view of extremism is subsumed under eternalism, to be abandoned by seeing suffering. 'The seven bodies of a person' means what the self grasps and sustains. 'The seven bodies of a person are not made' means there is no maker capable of making this body — 'made' here means that, although not actually made, it appears as if made. 'Not transformed' means there is no transformer capable of transforming this body — 'transformed' here means that, although not actually transformed, it appears as if transformed. 'Like the iṣīkā reed' means like the wood of the iṣīkā reed, or like the iṣīkā mountain, solid and difficult to destroy. 'Undergoing no change' means that the self abides permanently, and, though it may be hidden or manifest, undergoes no change. 'Not touching one another' means there is nothing capable of making them touch or obstruct one another. 'Whether moving or standing still': moving refers to beings such as humans, and standing still refers to things such as trees — these ascetics hold that trees and the like are likewise called persons, since they reckon that class, too, to possess a life-force. Although there is an interstice between the seven bodies through which a blade might pass, it does not harm the life-force, since the permanently abiding self that sustains the life-force cannot be harmed. 'No manifest action' means there is no karma capable of harming or striking; 'no locus for such action' means there is no object that is harmed or struck. That this view of extremism is subsumed under eternalism reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing suffering reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: there are certain ascetics who, regarding the four great elements and the continuity of suffering, pleasure, and the life-force — which, depending on causes and conditions combining, exist only moment by moment without abiding — fail to understand this properly, and so posit a self that grasps and sustains them, so that they suffer no harm. The life-force they speak of means the continuity of consciousness. Yet, not perceiving the interstices within the moment-by-moment turning of cause and effect in the continuity of body and mind, they grasp at a self that sustains and makes them permanent; and, upon giving up this body and taking up another, they explain it as when a tree falls and the birds gather on another tree — hence they speak of these seven bodies of a person, and so on, as stated at length. That this arises from concentration and from evil companions should be understood along the lines explained before.

Whoever holds this view — that there are one billion, four hundred million, sixty thousand, six hundred wombs of birth; five kinds of karma, three kinds of karma, two kinds of karma, karma and half-karma; sixty-two courses of practice; sixty-two intermediate eons; one hundred and thirty-six hells; one hundred and twenty faculties; thirty-six realms of defilement; forty-nine thousand clans of nāgas; forty-nine thousand clans of garuḍas; forty-nine thousand clans of other ascetics; forty-nine thousand clans of those who live by their craft;

seven treasuries of perceiving beings; seven treasuries of non-perceiving beings; seven treasuries of those freed from bonds; seven classes of asuras; seven classes of piśāca demons; seven realms of gods; seven realms of humans; seven great dreams and seven hundred lesser dreams; seven great wakings and seven hundred lesser wakings; seven great sin-cleansing pools and seven hundred lesser ones; seven great precipices and seven hundred lesser ones; seven great declines and seven hundred lesser ones; seven great advances and seven hundred lesser ones; six classes of superior rebirth; and eight great stages of the person. Passing through all such places over eighty-four thousand great eons, whether foolish or wise, one wanders back and forth until one finally and certainly reaches the very limit of suffering — just as a ball of thread, when thrown, comes to rest only once the thread has all run out. In this teaching there is no true renunciant, no true brāhmaṇa —

capable of saying, 'By moral discipline, or by diligence, or by the holy life, I shall bring to ripening whatever karma is not yet ripened; once ripened, it is touched and then discharged.' By such a measure, the limit of the suffering and pleasure of birth-and-death cannot be reckoned; whether it increases or decreases cannot be said either; whether it is so or not so, this is a wrong grasping at what is not a cause as if it were a cause, a grasping at precepts and vows, to be abandoned by seeing suffering. As for 'one billion, four hundred million, sixty thousand, six hundred wombs of birth': just as in the true Dharma there are four wombs of birth — namely, womb-birth, egg-birth, moisture-birth, and spontaneous birth — which every sentient being alike undergoes, its measure fixed, neither exceeded nor diminished, so too these ascetics — the disheveled ones clad in coarse garments — reckon that there are precisely this many various kinds of wombs of birth, each and every being alike undergoing them all, their number fixed, neither increased nor decreased. As for 'five kinds of karma, up through karma and half-karma': just as in the true Dharma the karma that produces the four wombs of birth, and the karma performed within each womb of birth, does not exceed five such kinds of karma, so too these ascetics hold that the karma producing their reckoned wombs of birth, and the karma performed within each, likewise does not exceed five such kinds of karma. As for the 'five kinds of karma': just as in the true Dharma it is taught that karma produces the five destinies, the preliminary efforts toward the five destinies, and the stations of the five destinies, so too these ascetics speak of five kinds of karma — namely, raising, lowering, bending, stretching, and movement as the fifth; or, alternatively, speech, hands, feet, and the two excretory organs as the five. As for the 'three kinds of karma': just as in the true Dharma there is bodily, vocal, and mental karma, so too these ascetics hold the same, except that they place the vocal first. As for the 'two kinds of karma': just as in the true Dharma there is intention and karma-after-intention, so too these ascetics speak of what they call black karma and white karma. As for 'karma and half-karma': just as in the true Dharma the karma that draws one toward a rebirth is called karma,

and the karma that fills it out completely is called half-karma — or, when both kinds are present together, it is called karma, and when only one is present, it is called half-karma — so too these ascetics speak of two kinds of karma: paired karma and unpaired karma. The karma that draws one toward a rebirth is called paired karma, and the karma that fills it out completely is called unpaired karma — or, when both are present together, it is called paired karma, and when only one is present, it is called unpaired karma; what is paired is called karma, and what is unpaired is called half-karma. These ascetics further speak of two kinds of karma: falling karma and near-falling karma. Killing a brāhmaṇa, or violating one's father, mother, teacher, friend, or a woman, or stealing gold, or drinking liquor, is called falling karma; every other evil karma is called near-falling karma; the former is named karma, and the latter half-karma. They further say that bodily and vocal karma are called karma, since they harm or benefit both oneself and others, while mental karma is called half-karma, since it harms or benefits only oneself. They further say that the karma that brings about rebirth-existence is called karma, while the karma that brings about the intermediate existence is called half-karma. They further say that the karma that, before birth, brings about one's class of common existence is called karma, while the karma that, after birth, one experiences as ripened retribution is called half-karma. They further say that karma performed in full is called karma, while karma performed only in part is called half-karma. As for the 'sixty-two courses of practice': just as in the true Dharma the four courses of practice are called the path of purification, so too these ascetics speak of sixty-two courses of practice as the path of purification. As for the 'sixty-two intermediate eons':

just as in the true Dharma eighty intermediate eons are said to constitute one full measure, so too these ascetics say that sixty-two intermediate eons constitute one full measure,

and that, within this span of time, one cultivates the sixty-two courses of practice to reach the very limit of suffering. As for the 'one hundred and thirty-six hells': just as in the true Dharma there are eight great hells, each with sixteen subsidiary hells, so too these ascetics say the same, except that they hold that every being must be reborn in every one of them before attaining liberation. As for the 'one hundred and twenty faculties': just as in the true Dharma there are twenty-two faculties, so too these ascetics speak of one hundred and twenty faculties — namely, the eye, ear, and nose, each counted twice, making six; the tongue, body, mind, life-force, and the five feeling-faculties, together with the five faculties of faith and the rest, making twenty in total —

twenty for each of the six destinies makes one hundred and twenty — the six destinies here include the asuras as the sixth. They hold that every being must, in each of the six destinies, undergo precisely this many faculties, neither more nor fewer. Some say: 'faculty' here carries the sense of dominance, and every being must attain mastery in all one hundred and twenty of these stations before attaining liberation. As for the 'thirty-six realms of defilement': just as in the true Dharma there are ninety-eight latent afflictions that serve as the basis for all defilement, so too these ascetics speak of thirty-six realms of defilement as the basis for defilement. As for the 'forty-nine thousand clans of nāgas': 'clan' here means kind or family — just as in the true Dharma nāgas have four families, namely womb-, egg-, moisture-, and spontaneous-born, so too these ascetics speak of forty-nine thousand clans of nāgas,

each and every being alike undergoing every one of these families without exception. As for the 'forty-nine thousand clans of garuḍas': just as in the true Dharma garuḍas have four families — namely womb-, egg-, moisture-, and spontaneous-born — so too these ascetics speak of forty-nine thousand clans of garuḍas, each and every being alike undergoing every one of these families without exception. As for the 'forty-nine thousand clans of other ascetics': this means that renunciant non-Buddhist ascetics number this many kinds, and these ascetics hold that every being must, in turn, go forth as a renunciant within every one of these kinds. As for the 'forty-nine thousand clans of those who live by their craft': this means those who practice a skilled trade to sustain their livelihood number this many kinds, and these ascetics hold that every being must, in turn, train in every one of these occupations. As for the 'seven treasuries of perceiving beings': they hold there are seven attainments of perception. As for the 'seven treasuries of non-perceiving beings': they hold there are seven attainments of non-perception. Every being must, in turn, attain each and every one of these concentrations. As for the 'seven treasuries of those freed from bonds': these are precisely the preliminary efforts toward the concentrations spoken of above; they hold that every being must, in these preliminary efforts, free the mind from every bond and cultivate it accordingly. As for the 'seven classes of asuras' and the 'seven classes of piśāca demons': they hold that every being must pass seven times back and forth through the realms of the asuras and piśācas before attaining liberation. As for the 'seven realms of gods' and the 'seven realms of humans': they hold that every being must pass seven times back and forth through the realms of gods and humans before attaining liberation. As for the 'seven great dreams and seven hundred lesser dreams': they hold that, according to the distinct places of one's birth, there are seven great dreams and seven hundred lesser dreams, each with its own distinct experiences and sights, and every being alike must undergo every one of them. As for the 'seven great wakings and seven hundred lesser wakings': they hold that, according to the distinct places of one's birth, corresponding to that many great and lesser dreams, there are that same number of great and lesser wakings, each with its own distinct experiences and sights, and every being alike must undergo every one of them. As for the 'seven great sin-cleansing pools and seven hundred lesser ones': they hold that, in the world, there are seven great pools and springs that cleanse sin, and seven hundred lesser ones, and every being must bathe in every one of them before attaining liberation. As for the 'seven great precipices and seven hundred lesser ones': a precipice here means a ravine, valley, mountain cliff, or riverbank; they hold that there are seven great such sin-cleansing precipitous places, and seven hundred lesser ones, and every being must, in every one of them, give up body and life before attaining liberation. As for the 'seven great declines and seven hundred lesser ones': decline here means the loss of merit; they hold that there are seven great places where beings lose merit, and seven hundred lesser ones, and every being must, in every one of them, lose merit in turn. As for the 'seven great advances and seven hundred lesser ones': advance here means the increase of merit; they hold that there are seven great places where beings advance in merit, and seven hundred lesser ones, and every being must, in every one of them, alternate between decline and advance before finally attaining liberation. As for the 'six classes of superior rebirth': this refers to the six classes of superior rebirth posited by the ascetic Pūraṇa Kāśyapa — namely, black, blue, yellow, red, white, and utterly white. Among the distinct kinds of birth: the black class of superior rebirth means those of impure occupation, such as butchers and the like; the blue class means the rest who live as householders; the yellow class means the rest who have gone forth as renunciants; the red class means the ascetic sons of the Śākyas; the white class means those freed from bonds; the utterly white class means figures such as Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Saṅkicca, and Makkhali Gosāla. They hold that every being must fully undergo all six of these classes before attaining liberation. The Buddha, too, posits six classes of superior rebirth: first, there is a black superior person who gives rise to and cultivates black dharmas; second, there is a black superior person who gives rise to and cultivates white dharmas; third, there is a black superior person who gives rise to and cultivates dharmas that are neither black nor white and attains nirvāṇa; fourth, there is a white superior person who gives rise to and cultivates white dharmas; fifth, there is a white superior person who gives rise to and cultivates black dharmas; sixth, there is a white superior person who gives rise to and cultivates dharmas that are neither black nor white and attains nirvāṇa. As for the 'eight great stages of the person': just as in the true Dharma there are the four dhyānas and the four formless attainments as stations replete with merit, so too these ascetics speak of eight Brahmā-superior stations, called the eight great stages of the person, which every being must fully attain. As for 'passing through all such places over eighty-four thousand great eons, whether foolish or wise, one wanders back and forth until one finally and certainly reaches the very limit of suffering': they hold that the black class of superior rebirth wanders back and forth for fourteen thousand great eons, and only then enters the blue class of superior rebirth; the blue class, in turn, wanders back and forth for fourteen thousand great eons, and only then enters the yellow class; the yellow class, in turn, wanders back and forth for a further fourteen thousand great eons, and only then enters the red class; the red class, in turn, wanders back and forth for a further fourteen thousand great eons, and only then enters the white class; the white class, in turn, wanders back and forth for a further fourteen thousand great eons, and only then enters the utterly white class;

the utterly white class, in turn, wanders back and forth for a further fourteen thousand great eons, and only then is finally able to reach the very limit of suffering. As for 'like a ball of thread, when thrown, coming to rest only once the thread has all run out': just as, throwing a great ball of thread from atop a mountain, it comes to rest only once the thread has entirely run out, so too beings wander back and forth through all the places of rebirth described above over eighty-four thousand great eons, and only then are finally able to reach the very limit of suffering. As for 'by such a measure, the limit of the suffering and pleasure of birth-and-death cannot be reckoned; whether it increases or decreases cannot be said either': just as, measuring rice or wheat with a bushel-basket, once the quantity is known, it cannot be further increased or decreased, nor is there any room for doubt, so too they hold that beings, wandering back and forth through the places described above over eighty-four thousand great eons, thereafter attain liberation, neither more nor less, and this too should admit no doubt. Some say —

one must wander through double the number stated here before attaining liberation. Because they speak of wandering back and forth, this is a wrong grasping at what is not a cause as if it were a cause —

as for grasping at precepts and vows, this reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing suffering reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it?

It means that there are ascetics who give rise to this view either through incorrect reasoning, or through attaining a mundane concentration, or through associating with evil companions — this should be understood as explained before.

Whoever holds this view — that whatever every person or individual experiences invariably has past deeds as its cause — this is a wrong grasping at what is not a cause as if it were a cause, a grasping at precepts and vows, to be abandoned by seeing suffering. 'Whatever is experienced' means all the suffering and pleasure presently experienced. 'Invariably has past deeds as its cause' means that all of it has past karma as its cause. Question: the true Dharma likewise teaches that the suffering and pleasure one experiences has past karma as its cause, yet this is not called an evil view — these ascetics say the very same thing; why, then, is theirs called an evil view? Answer: the true Dharma teaches that what is presently experienced sometimes has past karma as its cause, and sometimes is the fruit of present effort; these ascetics hold that everything, without exception, has past karma as its cause, and do not allow that there is any fruit of present effort — it is for this reason that theirs is called an evil view. Question: since they already deny present cause and effect, this ought to be named simply a wrong view — why is it named a grasping at precepts and vows? Answer: what is meant here is not that their denial of present cause and effect is named a grasping at precepts and vows, but rather that their positing of a dharma produced by one cause as instead having some other dharma as its cause is what is subsumed under grasping at precepts and vows. That this is a wrong grasping at what is not a cause as if it were a cause, a grasping at precepts and vows, reveals its intrinsic nature; that it is to be abandoned by seeing suffering reveals its antidote, explained at length as before. What gives rise to it? It means that these ascetics observe directly in the world that some, though exerting effort, fail to obtain a result, while some, without seeking it at all, obtain it naturally; they then reflect that one should know that all of this has past deeds as its cause, not present effort. Yet they do not know that good and evil karma is of a kind either fixed or not fixed, and that its timing differs, and it is for this reason that they give rise to this attachment. Some say: these ascetics attain a mundane concentration and, by mindfulness, know the karma they performed in past lives, and so hold that everything comes solely from past deeds.

Some say: these ascetics arrive at this view solely on account of evil companions, explained at length as before.