Establishing Suffering and Emptiness
The second and third theses. That everything is suffering is the harder claim, because two of the three sufferings are obvious and the third is not — and it is the third, the suffering of formations, that the chapter has to prove. It does so by an argument about what would follow if pleasant experience were really pleasant, catalogues fifty-five kinds of suffering, and ends by matching each of eighteen knowledges to the particular suffering it removes. Then emptiness, defined in a formula that is neither an assertion of existence nor of non-existence, and defended by working through every simile anyone has offered for how a self might relate to what it supposedly owns — the householder in his house, fire in fuel, light in a lamp, space among things, a potter, a seed, a knife.
Where This Fascicle Picks Up
Fascicle 14 established the first of the four theses — that conditioned things are impermanent — and closed by quoting the Buddha's sequence: whatever is impermanent is necessarily suffering, and whatever is suffering is necessarily without self. This fascicle takes the next two steps.
Collation against T1603 confirms forty verse lines in the fifth chapter and forty-six in the sixth, matching line for line. Two single-character variants appear, and both are noted where they fall — in each case the prose commentary settles the reading in favor of T1602.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column, our English in the right. See also this site's note on translation method.
1. The General Mark of Suffering, and the Three Sufferings
如是成立無常相已。云何成立苦相？頌曰：
生為欲離因， 滅生和合欲，
倒無倒厭離， 彼因為苦相。
論曰：若法生時為遠離欲因，若法滅時為和合欲因。若不了知是顛倒因，若善通達是無倒因，於一切時生厭離欲。如是應知是苦通相。復次頌曰：
依三受差別， 建立三苦相，
故說一切受， 體性皆是苦。
The mark of impermanence having been established, how is the mark of suffering established?
Arising, it is a cause for wishing to be free;
ceasing, it is a cause for wishing to be joined;
distorted or undistorted, it is a cause
of weariness and dispassion — such is the mark of suffering.
The exposition: when a thing arises it is a cause for wishing to be far from it; when a thing ceases it is a cause for wishing to be joined with it. If one does not understand this, it is a cause of distortion; if one penetrates it well, it is an undistorted cause, and one gives rise at all times to weariness and dispassion. This should be known as the general mark of suffering.
By the differences among the three feelings
the three marks of suffering are established;
and so all feeling is said
to be in its very substance suffering.
論曰：由依三受相差別故，建立三苦相，謂苦苦相、壞苦相、行苦相。由此相故，佛說諸受皆名為苦。謂於苦受及順苦受處法，當知建立最初苦相。於樂受及順樂受處法，當知建立第二苦相。於不苦不樂受及順此受處法，當知建立第三苦相。由不了知此第三相，能為常等顛倒生因。若能了知，為無常等無倒生因，及能發起涅槃樂欲。又由了知不了知第三苦故，於前二苦亦了不了應知。
The exposition: because of the differences among the marks of the three feelings, three marks of suffering are established — the mark of the suffering of pain, of the suffering of decay, and of the suffering of formations. It is on account of these marks that the Buddha said all feeling is called suffering. With respect to painful feeling and the states conducive to it, the first mark of suffering is established. With respect to pleasant feeling and the states conducive to it, the second. With respect to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling and the states conducive to it, the third. Because one does not understand this third mark, it becomes a cause producing the distortion of permanence and the rest. If one can understand it, it is an undistorted cause producing impermanence and the rest, and can arouse the wish for nirvāṇa. And know that by understanding or not understanding the third suffering, one understands or fails to understand the first two as well.
The general mark is stated as a two-way test on wanting, and it is a shrewd one. Whatever arises, one wishes to be free of; whatever ceases, one wishes to have back. Both wishes are directed at the same thing at different moments, which is why neither can be satisfied — and the state of being always in one of the two is what "suffering" names. The mark is not pain but restlessness with respect to what is present.
The last sentence sets the chapter's whole strategy: understanding or missing the third suffering determines whether one understands the first two. Anyone recognizes pain as suffering and can be brought to see that pleasure decays. Only the third — that the neutral, unremarkable texture of ordinary experience is itself suffering — is genuinely at issue, and everything else in the chapter depends on it.
2. Proving the Suffering of Formations
The core argument, staged as an exchange with an opponent who spots that the objection cuts both ways.
復次前二苦相世間共成，第三苦相不共成立。今當成立諸行性是行苦。頌曰：
當知行性苦， 皆麁重隨故，
樂、捨不應理， 同無解脫過。
論曰：諸行性樂及性是捨，不應道理。何以故？於一切位麁重所隨故，是故諸行體性是苦。若不爾，如其次第於彼性樂及不苦不樂，樂欲應無，應無苦及不苦不樂覺，應無苦樂覺。
問：汝亦同然，若唯一行苦性者，應無樂及不苦不樂覺。答：由不了故謂有。問：我亦同然，由不了故謂有。答：不然，無解脫過故。若於性樂及不苦不樂諸行了知是苦，名苦諦現觀，由此次第乃至證得究竟解脫。若不了故，謂為苦者即是顛倒，不應能證究竟寂滅。
The first two marks of suffering are commonly established by the world; the third is not commonly established. It is now to be established that formations are by nature the suffering of formations.
Know that formations are by nature suffering,
since coarse heaviness pursues them all;
that they are pleasant or neutral does not stand to reason —
and the same objection has the fault of no liberation.
The exposition: that formations are by nature pleasant, or by nature neutral, does not stand to reason. Why? Because in every state coarse heaviness pursues them; therefore formations are in their substance suffering. Were it otherwise, then in those that are by nature pleasant and neither-painful-nor-pleasant, respectively, there should be no wish for pleasure, no awareness of pain or of the neutral, and no awareness of pain or pleasure at all.
Question: the same applies to you. If there is only the one nature, the suffering of formations, then there should be no awareness of pleasure or of the neutral. Answer: because one does not understand, one supposes there is. Question: the same applies to me — because one does not understand, one supposes there is. Answer: not so, because of the fault of there being no liberation. If, with respect to formations that are by nature pleasant and neutral, one understands that they are suffering, that is called the direct realization of the truth of suffering, and by that sequence one comes to realize final liberation. But if it is because one does not understand that one supposes them to be suffering, then it is a distortion, and one should not be able to realize final quiescence.
The exchange is worth following closely, because the opponent's move is a good one. Asaṅga says pleasure is really suffering, and we only think it pleasant because we do not understand. The opponent replies: then I may say the reverse — things are really pleasant, and you only think them suffering because you do not understand. The symmetry is exact and cannot be broken by any further appeal to what things are like.
The answer breaks it from a different direction entirely: 無解脫過, the fault of there being no liberation. If seeing pleasure as suffering is the misunderstanding, then that misunderstanding is what the whole path cultivates, and the path leads nowhere. Whereas on Asaṅga's account, seeing through pleasure to the suffering of formations is the direct realization of the truth of suffering, and liberation follows from it. The argument is decided not by which description fits experience better — both fit — but by which one can be the beginning of a path.
The premise carrying the weight is 麁重, coarse heaviness, which has run through this treatise since fascicle 1: the unworkability of body and mind that accompanies every state whatever. That is what makes even neutral experience unsatisfactory, and it is why the third suffering is invisible — it is the background rather than an event.
3. Ten Marks of Suffering, and the Simile of the Boil
復次頌曰：
利深等障礙， 依進住乘空，
執著性下劣， 顛倒及染污。
論曰：又諸行性苦，少苦加之，苦相猛利；樂等不爾。又苦相深重，難為對治；樂等不爾。又苦相平等，遍一切處，乃至證得廣大法者亦被損惱。又執常樂我淨，名為顛倒，能障聖法。又執樂等，能為貪等大小諸惑所依止處。又苦等行能引勝進上地功德。又復久處住等威儀，即生大苦不可堪忍。又執空者，亦大苦隨逐。又執著樂者，其性下劣。又於諸行執計為樂，顛倒所攝。又緣世樂所起樂欲多是染污。是故諸行皆性是苦。
Furthermore:
Sharp, deep, and obstructing;
as support of advance, in dwelling, in riding on emptiness;
clinging is inferior in nature,
distorted, and defiled.
The exposition: formations being by nature suffering, when a little suffering is added the mark of suffering is sharp — pleasure and the rest are not so. Again, the mark of suffering is deep and heavy and hard to counteract — pleasure and the rest are not so. Again, the mark of suffering is even and pervades everywhere, so that even one who has attained vast teachings is still injured by it. Again, clinging to permanence, pleasure, self, and purity is called distortion and can obstruct the noble teachings. Again, clinging to pleasure and the rest becomes the support of craving and the other delusions great and small. Again, the formations that are suffering can draw forth the qualities of advancing to higher levels. Again, remaining long in one posture produces great suffering that cannot be endured. Again, one who clings to emptiness is also pursued by great suffering. Again, one who clings to pleasure is inferior in nature. Again, to reckon formations as pleasant is comprised in distortion. Again, the wish for pleasure that arises with worldly pleasure as its object is for the most part defiled. Therefore all formations are by nature suffering.
復次頌曰：
如癰疥癩等， 三受之所依，
彼能發三觸， 取樂等隨轉。
論曰：諸行性苦當知猶如癰疥癩等三受所依。何以故？世間癰疥癩等能發隨順苦樂捨等三種觸故，由依此觸世間有情取為苦樂不苦不樂。如是於諸性苦諸行發起三觸，由此觸故樂等受轉。此若無者，諸受不轉。如是顯示苦相立宗及因喻已。
Furthermore:
Like a boil, scabies, leprosy and the rest,
the support of the three feelings;
they give rise to the three contacts,
and taking them up, pleasure and the rest turn.
The exposition: formations, being by nature suffering, should be known to be like a boil, scabies, leprosy, and the rest, which are the support of the three feelings. Why? Because in the world a boil, scabies, and leprosy give rise to three kinds of contact conducive to pain, to pleasure, and to neutrality; and in dependence on that contact beings take them up as painful, pleasant, or neither. Just so, upon formations that are by nature suffering, three contacts arise, and by that contact pleasant and other feelings turn. Were this not so, feelings would not turn at all. Thus the thesis of the mark of suffering, together with its reason and example, has been displayed.
The boil is one of the great images in Buddhist literature, and this is its full working out. A boil hurts when knocked; it feels good when warm water is poured on it; and most of the time one does not notice it. Three feelings, all of them arising from one diseased thing. The pleasure of the warm water is real pleasure — nobody is denying it — but it is entirely a function of there being a boil there. Formations are like that: the pleasures they afford are the pleasures available to a sick body, and they exist because something is wrong, not in spite of it.
Among the ten marks, two are practical enough to test. 久處住等威儀, remaining long in one posture produces unendurable suffering — a fact about sitting that anyone who meditates knows, offered here as evidence that the neutral is not neutral but merely slow. And 執空者亦大苦隨逐, one who clings to emptiness is also pursued by great suffering — a warning aimed at the treatise's own readers, and a reminder of why the wrong view of emptiness was listed among the sixteen rival doctrines in fascicle 10.
Note also the third mark: suffering is even and pervades everywhere, so that 證得廣大法者亦被損惱, even one who has attained vast teachings is injured by it. The treatise does not exempt the accomplished.
4. Why Exactly Three, and Fifty-Five Kinds
復何因緣建立諸行唯有三苦不多不少？頌曰：
自相、自分別、 不安隱苦性，
五十五應知， 三苦之所攝。
論曰：由苦自性唯有三種。一由自相故，謂苦苦性。二由自分別故，謂壞苦性，若無分別，雖有變壞，已解脫者苦不生故。三由不安隱故，謂行苦性，煩惱麁重等所隨逐故。如是三苦差別，復有五十五種應知。云何五十五種？頌曰：
界、緣、身等、趣、 種類、諦、三世，
時、命、品異故， 引眾苦差別。
For what reason are exactly three sufferings established for formations, no more and no fewer?
By its own mark; by one's own discrimination;
by insecurity — such is the nature of suffering.
Know that the fifty-five
are subsumed under the three sufferings.
The exposition: the nature of suffering is of exactly three kinds. First, by its own mark — the nature of the suffering of pain. Second, by one's own discrimination — the nature of the suffering of decay; for without discrimination, although there is decay, suffering does not arise in one already liberated. Third, by insecurity — the nature of the suffering of formations, since it is pursued by the afflictions and coarse heaviness. And these three sufferings have fifty-five distinctions.
By realm, by condition, by body and the rest, by destiny,
by class, by truth, by the three times,
by time, by livelihood, and by kind —
the many sufferings are drawn out in their distinctions.
論曰：界差別故有三苦，謂欲界繫、色界繫、無色界繫。緣差別故有六種苦，謂欲根本苦、愚癡報苦、先業緣苦、現因緣苦、淨業緣苦、不淨業緣苦。身等差別故有四種苦，謂受重擔等苦、位變壞苦、麁重苦、死生苦。趣差別故有五種苦，謂那落迦苦乃至天趣苦。種類差別故有五種苦，謂逼惱苦、匱乏苦、大乖違苦、愛變壞苦、麁重苦。諦差別故有八種苦，謂生苦、老苦、病苦、死苦、怨憎會苦、愛別離苦、求不得苦、五取蘊苦。世緣差別故有九種苦，謂過去苦，因過去未來現在緣所生；如是未來、現在苦亦爾。時差別故有四種苦，謂時節變異苦、飢苦、渴苦、威儀屈伸入息出息閉目開目等所引苦。養命差別故有四種苦，謂所求無厭足苦、追求苦、守護苦、不自在苦。
品差別故有七種苦：一損減苦，謂在家品。二增益苦，謂出家品。三憂惱苦。四離有苦。又依善說法律出家者有三種苦：一愚癡苦，謂希望未來追味過去故；二嫉妬苦；三不勝他苦。依惡說法律出家者亦有三苦：一愚癡苦，謂於所知法顛倒執故；二嫉妬苦，謂於佛及佛弟子所得名利心不忍故；三他所勝苦，謂為名利故起諍論時墮負處故。
The exposition: by difference of realm, three sufferings — bound to the realm of desire, to form, to formlessness. By difference of condition, six — the suffering that is the root of desire; the suffering that is the recompense of confusion; suffering conditioned by former karma; by present causes; by pure karma; and by impure karma. By difference of body and the rest, four — the suffering of bearing a heavy burden and the like; of the decay of one's stage; of coarse heaviness; and of death and birth. By difference of destiny, five — the suffering of the hells, down to that of the god-realms. By difference of class, five — the suffering of oppression; of destitution; of great discord; of the decay of what is loved; and of coarse heaviness. By difference of truth, eight — birth, aging, sickness, death, meeting what one hates, parting from what one loves, not getting what one seeks, and the five grasped aggregates. By difference of time as condition, nine — past suffering produced by past, future, and present conditions, and likewise for future and present suffering. By difference of time, four — the suffering of the changing seasons; of hunger; of thirst; and that drawn on by bending and stretching in the postures, by breathing in and out, and by closing and opening the eyes. By difference of livelihood, four — the suffering of never having enough of what one seeks; of pursuing it; of guarding it; and of having no mastery.
By difference of kind, seven: first, the suffering of diminution, in the class of householders; second, the suffering of increase, in the class of renunciants; third, the suffering of anxiety; fourth, the suffering of departing from existence. And for those gone forth in a well-stated Dharma and discipline there are three sufferings: the suffering of confusion, in hoping for the future and savoring the past; the suffering of envy; and the suffering of not surpassing others. And for those gone forth in a badly stated Dharma and discipline there are also three: the suffering of confusion, in grasping wrongly at what is to be known; the suffering of envy, in not bearing the gain and fame obtained by the Buddha and his disciples; and the suffering of being surpassed by others, in falling into the place of defeat when disputing for gain and fame.
The three sufferings are distinguished by what makes each one suffering, and the second is the interesting one. Pain hurts by its own mark. But decay is suffering 由自分別, by one's own discrimination — and the proof offered is that things decay for a liberated person too, and it does not hurt. The suffering of decay is entirely constituted by minding, which is why it is the one that can be removed without changing anything about the world.
The item under "time" is the most quietly devastating in the whole list: the suffering drawn on by 威儀屈伸入息出息閉目開目, bending and stretching, breathing in and out, closing and opening the eyes. Nothing here is an affliction. These are the involuntary motions of being alive, and they are counted as suffering because each of them is a small correction to a discomfort one did not notice accumulating. This is the suffering of formations made concrete.
The seven "by kind" are the most human, and their symmetry is unsparing. Householders suffer by diminution — things are taken from them. Renunciants suffer by increase. And the three sufferings of a monk in a true tradition are given without any softening: nostalgia and daydreaming, envy, and the pain of not being better than other people.
5. Suffering Sorted by Level and Truth
頌曰：
未離欲色等， 三種地應知，
欲界一切種， 色無色除二。
論曰：如是五十五種苦，三地所攝。一未離欲地，謂欲界所繫；二已離欲地，謂色界所繫；三離欲色地，謂無色界繫。即此三種，如其次第立三種苦，謂上中下。又欲界中具一切種苦，色無色界中無二種苦，所謂苦苦、壞苦所攝二，及欲根本苦、愚癡報苦所攝二，然有餘苦。
頌曰：
世俗有二種， 勝義謂遍行，
二緣通上地， 當知無現染。
論曰：如是諸苦略有二種，謂世俗、勝義別故。世俗諦所攝苦有二種，謂苦苦及壞苦。勝義諦所攝有一種，謂行苦。此亦名遍行苦，遍至欲等三界故。欲界上地有二緣所生苦，謂有先業緣苦、無現在因緣苦，有淨緣苦、無不淨緣苦。
頌曰：
非無色重擔， 遍行天麁重，
及諦最後邊， 餘七上隨縛。
論曰：無色界中無身重擔苦，有天趣苦、麁重苦，諦最後邊諸取蘊苦。此通欲等三界，故名遍行苦。餘生等七苦欲界所攝，上地雖有隨縛，復可退還故，然無苦自體。
Verse:
Not yet free of desire, of form, and so on —
three levels are to be known:
the realm of desire has every kind,
form and formlessness exclude two.
The exposition: these fifty-five sufferings are comprised in three levels — the level not yet free of desire, bound to the realm of desire; the level already free of desire, bound to the realm of form; and the level free of craving for form, bound to the formless realm. In that order three grades of suffering are established: greater, middling, lesser. And in the realm of desire every kind of suffering is present; in the realms of form and formlessness two are absent — the two comprised in the suffering of pain and the suffering of decay, and the two comprised in the suffering that is the root of desire and the suffering that is the recompense of confusion — though other sufferings remain.
Verse:
Conventionally there are two;
ultimately it is the all-pervading;
two conditions extend to the higher levels —
know that there is no present defilement there.
The exposition: these sufferings are, in brief, of two kinds, differing as conventional and ultimate. Comprised in conventional truth are two, the suffering of pain and the suffering of decay. Comprised in ultimate truth is one, the suffering of formations — also called all-pervading suffering, since it reaches throughout the three realms. In the higher levels above the realm of desire, suffering arises from two conditions: there is suffering conditioned by former karma and none conditioned by present causes; there is suffering conditioned by pure karma and none by impure.
Verse:
Not the burden in the formless;
the all-pervading, the god-realm, coarse heaviness,
and the last of the truths —
the other seven bind from above.
The exposition: in the formless realm there is no suffering of the body's burden; there is the suffering of the god-destiny, the suffering of coarse heaviness, and the last of the eight truths, the suffering of the grasped aggregates. This extends through the three realms of desire and the rest, and so is called all-pervading suffering. The other seven, birth and the rest, are comprised in the realm of desire; and although in the higher levels they bind as latent bonds, since one may still fall back, they have no substance of suffering there.
The sorting by the two truths is the doctrinally important move. Conventionally there are two sufferings; ultimately there is one — 行苦, the suffering of formations, here given a second name, 遍行苦, all-pervading suffering. Pain and decay are real but local; they belong to particular experiences in particular realms. The third belongs to conditioned existence as such, which is why it alone survives into the formless realm and why it alone is the ultimate truth about suffering.
The description of the higher realms is precise and a little chilling. There is no pain there and nothing decays; suffering there is conditioned only by former karma and by pure karma, with no present cause and no impure cause. The gods are suffering the consequences of their own good deeds, in a realm where nothing goes wrong. And the seven ordinary sufferings — birth, aging, sickness, and the rest — are not absent but 隨縛, latent, because one may still fall back.
6. The Eight Sufferings Analyzed
頌曰：
當知生等苦， 各五種差別，
苦麁重相應， 三苦所依止。
論曰：生等七苦當知一一各有五種，謂苦相應故、麁重相應故，及三苦所依止故。生者，為老等苦所依、煩惱所依、不可樂欲行壞所依。老者，色衰退等所依。病者，習所不欲所依、不習所欲所依、順死大種乖違所依。死者，自體別離所依、財寶別離所依、所愛離別怨憎合會苦之所依。怨憎會等三苦，身逼迫所依、心逼迫所依，及彼所作衰損所依。
頌曰：
最後與最後， 各四苦所依，
謂生、生根本， 及苦性、變壞，
論曰：於八苦中最後所攝諸取蘊苦，及三苦中最後行苦，各為四苦所依故苦。一生苦所依、二生根本苦所依、三苦自性苦所依、四變壞苦所依。
頌曰：
三世之所攝， 二緣苦非上，
所說餘諸苦， 皆欲界應知。
論曰：欲界上地三世苦中，當知無有去來緣苦。何以故？非於上地緣過去未來虛妄分別生諸苦故，唯有現緣麁重所隨。除上所說，所餘諸苦當知唯在欲界所繫。
Verse:
Know that the sufferings of birth and the rest
each have five distinctions:
associated with suffering, associated with coarse heaviness,
and the support of the three sufferings.
The exposition: the seven sufferings of birth and the rest each have five kinds — being associated with suffering, associated with coarse heaviness, and being the support of the three sufferings. Birth is the support of the sufferings of aging and the rest, the support of the afflictions, and the support of the decay of what one does not wish to lose. Aging is the support of the decline of form and the rest. Sickness is the support of undergoing what one does not want, of not having what one wants, and of the discord of the great elements that leads toward death. Death is the support of separation from one's own body, of separation from wealth, and of the sufferings of parting from what is loved and meeting what is hated. The three sufferings of meeting what one hates and the rest are the support of bodily oppression, of mental oppression, and of the loss those bring about.
Verse:
The last and the last
are each the support of four sufferings:
namely birth, the root of birth,
the nature of suffering, and decay.
The exposition: among the eight sufferings the last, the suffering of the grasped aggregates, and among the three sufferings the last, the suffering of formations, are each suffering because they are the support of four sufferings — of the suffering of birth, of the suffering that is the root of birth, of the suffering that is suffering by its own nature, and of the suffering of decay.
Verse:
Comprised in the three times,
suffering from two conditions is not in the higher levels;
the other sufferings stated
are all in the realm of desire, be it known.
The exposition: among the sufferings of the three times, know that in the levels above the realm of desire there is no suffering conditioned by past or future. Why? Because in the higher levels sufferings do not arise from false discrimination taking past and future as object; there is only what is pursued by coarse heaviness with a present condition. Apart from what has been stated, all the remaining sufferings are to be known as bound to the realm of desire alone.
The analysis of the eight sufferings works by asking what each is the support of rather than what it feels like, and the result is a chain in which every item props up the next. Birth supports aging, the afflictions, and losing what one does not want to lose. Sickness supports getting what one does not want and not getting what one does. Death supports parting from body, wealth, and people. Nothing on the list is self-contained; each is a doorway into the others.
The remark about the higher realms adds a psychological observation to the cosmology: there, suffering does not arise from 緣過去未來虛妄分別, false discrimination taking past and future as object. Regret and anticipation are absent. What remains is only what coarse heaviness supplies in the present moment — which is precisely the suffering of formations, and precisely what cannot be escaped by rising.
7. Why Suffering Goes Unrecognized
復次何因緣故，於實有苦境諸愚癡轉？頌曰：
失念無功用， 亂不正思惟，
不正了愚癡， 及由放逸等。
論曰：於苦愚癡由五種因，及由前所說放逸等法。五種因者，一於過去苦念忘失故、二於未來苦不作功用推求故、三於現在苦起四倒亂故、四由不正思惟於麁重苦計為我故、五由不正了於諸性苦不了知故。復次由四種因起念忘失。頌曰：
昧故、羸劣故， 及起放逸故、
相續斷絕故， 忘念轉應知。
論曰：昧故者，謂愚昧種類。羸劣者，謂於死等位。放逸者，謂於境耽著。相續斷絕者，謂於餘生前眾同分相續斷故。復次由四種因無功用轉。頌曰：
昧故、放逸故、 保重現法故、
不信當苦故， 無功用發趣。
論曰：昧及放逸已如前說。保重現法者，由彼保重現在法故，於未來苦不作功用。不信當苦者，由不信有未來苦故，不作功用。
Further, for what reason does confusion turn with respect to an object that really is suffering?
Loss of mindfulness; no exertion;
disorder; attention not in accordance with principle;
failure to understand rightly — confusion,
and heedlessness and the rest.
The exposition: confusion about suffering arises from five causes, and from heedlessness and the other states stated above. The five causes are: forgetting past suffering; not exerting oneself to look into future suffering; giving rise to the four distortions and disorder concerning present suffering; through attention not in accordance with principle, reckoning the suffering of coarse heaviness as a self; and through failure to understand rightly, not knowing the formations that are by nature suffering.
Further, forgetting arises from four causes:
By dullness; by feebleness;
by heedlessness arising;
and by the continuum being cut off —
know that forgetting turns.
The exposition: by dullness means being of a dull kind. By feebleness means at the time of death and the like. By heedlessness means being absorbed in objects. By the continuum being cut off means that in another life the continuity of the former class-commonality is cut off.
Further, lack of exertion arises from four causes:
By dullness; by heedlessness;
by prizing the present life;
by not believing in future suffering —
one does not set out with exertion.
The exposition: dullness and heedlessness are as stated above. Prizing the present life: because one prizes present things, one makes no exertion with respect to future suffering. Not believing in future suffering: because one does not believe there is future suffering, one makes no exertion.
The five causes are organized by time, which makes them unusually easy to check against oneself. Past suffering one forgets. Future suffering one does not bother to look into. Present suffering one distorts. And then two that are not temporal at all: one takes the ache of coarse heaviness to be oneself rather than a condition, and one simply fails to see that formations are by nature suffering.
The fourth cause of forgetting is the structural one and explains why nobody learns from experience across lives: 相續斷絕, the continuum is cut off, and the class-commonality of the former life ends. We do not remember the last time we died. The other three causes are ordinary — being slow, being weak at the end, being absorbed in what is in front of one.
Note the verse variant here. T1603 reads 無功用發起 where T1602 reads 無功用發趣 — "does not arouse exertion" against "does not set out with exertion." The sense is the same and neither reading is obviously superior; this is the kind of small divergence collation turns up without resolving.
8. Four Distortions, Five Unrecognized Differences
復次由四種因起四顛倒。頌曰：
相似相續轉、 對治妄分別、
串習、總取故， 起四種顛倒。
論曰：以見相似相續轉故起於常倒。對治分別故起於樂倒，妄分別樂為苦對治故。由串習故起於淨倒。由總執故起於我倒。復次於苦愚癡。由不了別五因故起。何等為五？頌曰：
界別、緣起別、 位別、次第別，
及相續差別， 當知各多種。
論曰：界差別有三種苦，謂欲界、色界、無色界。緣差別有七種苦：一福緣、二非福緣，此二在欲界；三不動緣，在色無色界；四纏隨眠緣，謂異生者；五隨眠緣，謂見諦者；六有行緣，謂非菩薩；七智行緣，謂諸菩薩。
位差別有十二種苦：一純樂俱，謂諸天；二純苦俱，謂那洛迦及鬼、傍生一分；三雜苦樂俱，謂人及鬼、傍生一分；四不苦不樂俱，謂從第四靜慮乃至有頂；五不淨淨處，謂欲界中無難生處；六淨不淨處，謂色無色界中諸異生者；七淨淨處，謂色無色界中諸見諦者；八不淨不淨處，謂欲界中有難生處及四種入胎苦，一不正知入母胎、不正知住、不正知出，二正知入母胎、不正知住、不正知出，三正知入母胎、正知而住、不正知出，四正知入母胎、正知而住、正知而出。次第差別有十二種苦，謂依十二支緣起次第相續，差別有無量種，有情相續無邊差別故。
Further, the four distortions arise from four causes:
A resembling continuum turning on;
falsely discriminating a counteragent;
habituation; and taking things as a whole —
the four distortions arise.
The exposition: because one sees a resembling continuum turning on, the distortion of permanence arises. Because one discriminates a counteragent, the distortion of pleasure arises — falsely discriminating pleasure as the counteragent to suffering. By habituation, the distortion of purity arises. By grasping things as a whole, the distortion of a self arises.
Further, confusion about suffering arises from failing to distinguish five things. What five?
Difference of realm, of dependent arising,
of stage, of sequence,
and of continuum —
know each to be of many kinds.
The exposition: by difference of realm, three sufferings — of desire, form, and formlessness. By difference of condition, seven: conditioned by merit; by demerit — these two in the realm of desire; by the immovable, in form and formlessness; by entanglements and latent tendencies, in ordinary beings; by latent tendencies alone, in those who have seen the truths; by conduct with formation, in those who are not bodhisattvas; and by conduct with knowledge, in bodhisattvas.
By difference of stage, twelve: accompanied by pure pleasure, namely the gods; by pure pain, namely hell beings and some hungry ghosts and animals; by mixed pain and pleasure, namely humans and some hungry ghosts and animals; by neither pain nor pleasure, from the fourth absorption up to the summit of existence; an impure place that is pure, namely the places of birth in the realm of desire without hardship; a pure place that is impure, namely ordinary beings in the realms of form and formlessness; a pure place that is pure, namely those who have seen the truths in those realms; an impure place that is impure, namely places of birth with hardship in the realm of desire, together with the four sufferings of entering the womb — entering without right knowing, dwelling without it, emerging without it; entering with right knowing, dwelling and emerging without it; entering and dwelling with right knowing, emerging without it; and entering, dwelling, and emerging all with right knowing. By difference of sequence, twelve sufferings, following the sequence of the twelve links of dependent arising; and the differences are measureless, since the continuums of beings differ without end.
The second cause of the four distortions is the most acute observation in the chapter: the distortion of pleasure arises because one 妄分別樂為苦對治, falsely discriminates pleasure as the counteragent to suffering. Pleasure is not mistaken for something other than what it is. It is mistaken for a remedy. That is why it can be enjoyed indefinitely without ever satisfying — one is taking medicine for a disease it does not treat.
The fourfold analysis of entering the womb is a striking piece of the tradition's embryology, and its point is that awareness at the three thresholds — conception, gestation, birth — varies by attainment. Most beings pass through all three unknowing; the last case, knowing throughout, belongs to the highest. It is placed here among the stages of suffering, which is the sting: even entering the womb with full awareness is still one of the twelve stages in which suffering is found.
9. Eighteen Knowledges, and Which Suffering Each Ends
復次於一切苦能遍了知，當知有十八種。何等是耶？頌曰：
信解與思擇， 不亂心厭離，
見修及究竟， 又如前十一。
論曰：一信解遍智，謂聞所生智。二思擇遍智，謂思所生智。三不散亂遍智，謂世間修所生智。四厭心攝遍智，謂煖等順決擇分智，由此智觀自心相總厭離轉故。五見道遍智，謂依止見道智。六修道遍智，謂依止修道智。七究竟道遍智，謂無學道所攝智。及如前所說十一種智，一不善清淨世俗智、二善清淨世俗智、三勝義智、四不善清淨相有分別智、五善清淨相有分別智、六善清淨相無分別智、七成所作前行智、八成所作智、九成所作後智、十聲聞智、十一菩薩智。如是總為十八種如實了知苦遍智。
復次如是遍智為盡眾苦。由何遍智盡何等苦？頌曰：
纏、疑、不樂離， 沈、惡趣、餘趣，
下劣行所起， 遍獨眾苦盡。
論曰：信解遍智能滅纏苦；思擇遍智能滅疑苦；不散亂遍智能滅不樂遠離苦；厭心攝遍智能滅惛沈苦；見道遍智能滅惡趣苦；修道遍智能滅餘趣苦；究竟道遍智能滅下劣行所起苦，謂除樂速通行。所餘諸行皆名下劣應知。菩薩遍智遍滅一切自他諸苦，聲聞遍智獨滅自苦應知。
Further, the full knowledge that can fully know all suffering is of eighteen kinds. What are they?
Confident understanding and discernment;
undistracted, and the mind gathered in weariness;
seeing, cultivation, and the final —
and the eleven as stated above.
The exposition: first, the full knowledge of confident understanding, the knowledge born of hearing. Second, of discernment, born of reflection. Third, of non-distraction, the worldly knowledge born of cultivation. Fourth, gathered in weariness of mind, the knowledge of the factors conducive to penetration beginning with warmth, since by this knowledge one observes the mark of one's own mind and weariness turns throughout. Fifth, of the path of seeing. Sixth, of the path of cultivation. Seventh, of the final path, comprised in the path of the adept. Together with the eleven knowledges stated above: conventional knowledge not well purified; conventional knowledge well purified; ultimate knowledge; discriminating knowledge whose mark is not well purified; whose mark is well purified; non-discriminating knowledge whose mark is well purified; the knowledge preceding the accomplishing of what is to be done; the knowledge that accomplishes it; the knowledge subsequent to it; the knowledge of śrāvakas; and the knowledge of bodhisattvas. These together are the eighteen kinds of full knowledge that know suffering as it really is.
Further, such full knowledge is for the exhausting of the many sufferings. By which full knowledge is which suffering exhausted?
Entanglement, doubt, not delighting in seclusion,
torpor, the evil destinies, the other destinies,
what inferior conduct gives rise to —
universally, and alone, the many sufferings are exhausted.
The exposition: the full knowledge of confident understanding can extinguish the suffering of entanglement; that of discernment, the suffering of doubt; that of non-distraction, the suffering of not delighting in seclusion; that gathered in weariness, the suffering of torpor; that of the path of seeing, the suffering of the evil destinies; that of the path of cultivation, the suffering of the other destinies; that of the final path, the suffering arising from inferior conduct — that is, excepting pleasant and swift progress, all the remaining modes of progress are called inferior. The bodhisattva's full knowledge universally extinguishes all suffering, one's own and others'; the śrāvaka's extinguishes only one's own.
This closing matching is the most useful passage in the chapter for a practitioner, because it says which kind of understanding removes which kind of suffering, and the first four are all available before any attainment at all. Hearing removes the suffering of being entangled. Reflection removes the suffering of doubt. The worldly knowledge of cultivation removes the suffering of not wanting to be alone. And the knowledge of the penetration-factors removes the suffering of torpor. Four sufferings that afflict every beginner, each with a named remedy, none of which requires the path of seeing.
The last line is the chapter's quiet statement of the difference between the vehicles, and it is made in two adverbs — 遍 and 獨, universally and alone. The bodhisattva's full knowledge is not deeper; it extinguishes the same suffering. It extinguishes it in others too.
10. Establishing Emptiness: Its Own Mark
The third chapter of the run, and its opening definition is one of the most carefully balanced formulations in Yogācāra.
如是已成立苦相。云何成立空相？當知空相有三種：一自相、二甚深相、三差別相。云何自相？頌曰：
若於此無有， 及此餘所有，
隨二種道理， 說空相無二。
論曰：空自相者，非定有無。非定有者，謂於諸行中眾生自性及法自性，畢竟無所有故。非定無者，謂於此中眾生無我及法無我，有實性故。隨二種道理者，謂即於此中無二種我道理，及有二種無我道理，隨此二種故說空性無有二相。一非有相，二我無故；二非無相，二無我有故。何以故？此二我無，即是二無我有；此二無我有，即是二我無故，是故空性非定有相非定無相。
云何甚深相？頌曰：
甚深相應知， 取捨無增減。
論曰：隨前所說無二道理，雖捨諸法而無所減，雖取諸法而無所增。無取無捨、無增無減，是甚深空相。
The mark of suffering having been established, how is the mark of emptiness established? The mark of emptiness is of three kinds: its own mark, its profound mark, and its distinctions.
What is its own mark?
What is not present here,
and what else is present here —
following these two principles,
the mark of emptiness is said to be non-dual.
The exposition: the own mark of emptiness is neither definitely existent nor definitely non-existent. Not definitely existent: because within formations the own-nature of persons and the own-nature of phenomena are utterly absent. Not definitely non-existent: because within them the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena have a real nature. Following these two principles: within this there is the principle of the absence of the two selves, and the principle of the presence of the two selflessnesses; and following these two, the nature of emptiness is said to have no two marks. It is not of the mark of existence, since the two selves are absent; and not of the mark of non-existence, since the two selflessnesses are present. Why? Because the absence of these two selves just is the presence of the two selflessnesses, and the presence of the two selflessnesses just is the absence of the two selves. Therefore the nature of emptiness is neither definitely of the mark of existence nor definitely of the mark of non-existence.
What is its profound mark?
Know the profound mark:
in taking up and laying down, no increase or decrease.
The exposition: following the non-dual principle stated above, though one lays down all things nothing is decreased, and though one takes up all things nothing is increased. No taking up and no laying down, no increase and no decrease — this is the profound mark of emptiness.
The formula is worth memorizing in the form the treatise gives it, because it is exactly symmetrical: what is not present here, and what else is present here. Emptiness is not the absence of everything; it is the absence of one thing and the presence of another in the same place. The two selves are absent; the two selflessnesses are present, and the text is emphatic that these have 實性, a real nature. This is the same formulation fascicle 2 gave under the door of emptiness, now stated as the definition of the term itself.
What makes it non-dual is the identity asserted twice over: the absence of the two selves just is the presence of the two selflessnesses, and conversely. There are not two facts here, one negative and one positive. There is one fact, describable either way — which is why emptiness is neither an assertion of existence nor of non-existence.
The profound mark follows from this directly. If nothing was ever added, nothing can be taken away; the practitioner who lays down all things has not lost anything, because the selves were never there to lose. This is what saves the doctrine from being a doctrine of loss.
11. The Varieties of Emptiness, and Four Senses of Ultimate Emptiness
云何差別相？頌曰：
差別有眾多， 如彼彼宣說。
論曰：即此空性，薄伽梵於處處經中顯示多種差別，謂勝義空、內空、外空，如是等。今且分別。勝義空以勝義故空，無所有故名勝義空。此顯四種義。何者為四？一離我因義、二離我相義、三離無因義、四離非自業得義。由六處生時，不從我來亦不聚集依止於我，如是名為離我因義。若執六處以我為因，應無分別五趣別異。又由六處本無今有、有已散滅，故離我相，以如是相非我有故。又由有業為因，異熟生起，都無作者亦無有情捨續諸蘊，如是名為離無因義。又由於有分法假立有情，相續一類流至現在異熟法上非異相續，是故名為離非自業得義。
What are its distinctions?
The distinctions are many,
as proclaimed in this place and that.
The exposition: this nature of emptiness the Blessed One displayed in many distinctions throughout the scriptures — emptiness in the ultimate sense, inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and so on. Let us distinguish for now: emptiness in the ultimate sense is empty by way of the ultimate, and because nothing is there it is called emptiness in the ultimate sense. This displays four senses: being apart from a self as cause; apart from the mark of a self; apart from having no cause; and apart from being obtained otherwise than by one's own karma.
Apart from a self as cause: when the six sense fields arise, they do not come from a self, nor are they gathered together in dependence on a self. If one grasped the six sense fields as having a self for their cause, there should be no differentiation among the five destinies. Apart from the mark of a self: because the six sense fields, formerly not existing, now exist, and having existed disperse and cease — such a mark is not a self's. Apart from having no cause: because with karma as cause the ripened result arises, there being no agent at all and no being who lays down and takes up the aggregates. Apart from being obtained otherwise than by one's own karma: because a being is nominally established upon the states that have parts, and the continuum of one kind flows down to the present ripened states as no other continuum.
The four senses of ultimate emptiness are four different things it is empty of, and taken together they block every alternative. Not caused by a self — and the argument is neat: if a self caused the sense fields, everyone's would be the same, and there would be no difference among the five destinies. Not marked as a self, since what did not exist and now does and will disperse is not what anyone means by a self. Not uncaused, since karma is the cause. And not obtained from someone else's karma, since the continuum that arrives at the present result is the same one and no other.
The fourth is the subtlest and closes a gap the others leave. Having denied a self, one might think that the karma bearing fruit could be anyone's. The answer is that a being is nominally established on the continuum, and it is this continuum, 非異相續, no other one, that arrives at the result. Selflessness does not make karma transferable.
12. Where a Self Could Be: The Fourfold Search
復次云何應知補特伽羅我無所有？若有我者，為即蘊相、為住蘊中、為住餘處、為非蘊相？頌曰：
唯假過失故， 蘊無我過故，
我無身過故， 三我不應理。
論曰：若所計我即是蘊相，應唯是假，違汝自宗故成過失，以即於諸蘊假立我故。若離諸蘊住餘處者，我應無蘊。是亦有過，於諸蘊中無有我故。若非蘊相者，所計之我有無身過，無身之我不應理故。是故三種不應道理。
復次若計實我住諸蘊中，是亦不然。何以故？頌曰：
如主、火、明、空， 形異依他過，
無常無業用， 非因非有我。
論曰：所計實我住諸蘊中，為如主住舍、為如火在薪、為如明依燈、為如虛空處種種物？如是一切皆不應理。何以故？有五種過失故。何者為五？若如主住舍中者，形段應異，舍主與舍形貌異故。若如火在薪者，有依他過，火依薪力不自在故。若如明依燈者，有無常過，隨燈有無明起滅故。又前二種亦有無常過失，不見舍主有常住者，舍雖久住而彼舍主或往餘處或死滅故；火隨薪力有無不定，無常性故。若如虛空者，應有業用顯然過失。虛空業用顯然可得，謂去來等業無障礙故；我即不爾，故成過失。又所計我與果為因亦不可得。何以故？無我外物諸種子等，與果為因亦可得故。是故計我住諸蘊中與果為因，不應道理，亦無所計實我體性。
Further, how is it known that a personal self does not exist? If there were a self, would it be the mark of the aggregates, dwell within the aggregates, dwell in some other place, or not be the mark of the aggregates?
Because it would be merely nominal, a fault;
because there is no self in the aggregates, a fault;
because a self would be bodiless, a fault —
three ways a self does not stand to reason.
The exposition: if the supposed self were the mark of the aggregates, it would be merely nominal — which contradicts your own position and is a fault, since a self is nominally established upon the aggregates. If it dwelt in some other place apart from the aggregates, the self would be without aggregates, which is also a fault, since there is no self within the aggregates. If it were not the mark of the aggregates, the supposed self would have the fault of being bodiless, and a bodiless self does not stand to reason. Therefore the three do not stand to reason.
Further, to suppose a real self dwelling within the aggregates is likewise not so. Why?
Like a householder, fire, light, space:
the faults of differing shape and of dependence,
of impermanence, of having no function —
it is not a cause, and there is no self.
The exposition: does the supposed real self dwell within the aggregates as a householder dwells in a house, as fire is in fuel, as light depends on a lamp, or as space accommodates various things? None of these stands to reason, because of five faults. If as a householder in a house, the shapes should differ, since a householder and a house differ in form. If as fire in fuel, there is the fault of dependence, since fire depends on the power of the fuel and is not free. If as light on a lamp, there is the fault of impermanence, since light arises and ceases according as the lamp is or is not. And the first two also have the fault of impermanence: one does not find a householder who abides permanently, for though the house stands long, the householder may go elsewhere or die; and fire, being or not being according to the power of the fuel, is impermanent. If as space, there is the fault of a plainly evident function: space's function is plainly found, in that going and coming and the rest are unobstructed — the self is not so, and this is a fault. And the supposed self cannot be found as a cause of any effect. Why? Because outer things such as seeds, having no self, can also be found as causes of effects. Therefore supposing a self dwelling within the aggregates and serving as cause of an effect does not stand to reason, and there is no substance of the supposed real self at all.
The four dwelling-similes are each defeated by a different feature, and reading them together shows how thoroughly the ground has been covered. A householder is the wrong shape — a self would have to be a different-shaped thing inside the aggregates, and no such thing is found. Fire is not free — it burns only as the fuel permits, and a self dependent on the aggregates is not the self anyone wanted. Light is impermanent — snuff the lamp and it is gone. And space has an evident function, which the self does not: one can demonstrate what space does by walking across a room.
The last argument is the most economical. Even if a self could dwell somewhere, what would it be for? To be a cause of effects — but seeds cause sprouts without any self, so causation is already accounted for. This is the same economic objection the treatise made throughout fascicle 9: 何須計我, what need is there to suppose a self?
13. If Not a Dweller, Then an Agent? Seven Similes
問：若唯有蘊無別我者，誰見誰聞乃至誰能了別？答：若見聞等即是我體、或是我業、或是我具，執我以為見聞者等，皆不應理。何以故？頌曰：
我唯應是假， 譬喻不可得，
七喻妄分別， 無見者等三。
論曰：若汝執我即是見等，又名見者乃至了別者，所計之我唯應是假，即於見等法上假立我故。若執見等是業是具，此亦不然，無譬喻故。雖妄分別七種譬喻，然有多過，是故三種皆不應理。云何多過？頌曰：
若如種無常， 作者應成假，
如成就神通， 應世俗自在。
論曰：若汝計我於見聞等業如種於芽者，我應無常，種非常故。若汝計我於見聞業等如陶師於器者，我應是假。何以故？世間現見假名士夫有造器用，不見餘故。若汝計我於見等業猶如世間有神通者能起變化，即應同彼世俗假立及自在過。何以故？離假者外，餘成神通者所不見故。又復現見成神通者，於變化事隨意自在，我於見等不假異緣應得自在。
Question: if there are only aggregates and no separate self, who sees, who hears, down to who discriminates? Answer: whether seeing and hearing are the substance of a self, or its action, or its instrument, to grasp a self as the seer and hearer does not stand to reason. Why?
The self would be merely nominal;
no simile is to be found;
seven similes are falsely discriminated —
there is no seer and the rest, in three ways.
The exposition: if you grasp the self as being seeing and the rest, and call it seer down to discriminator, then the supposed self would be merely nominal, since a self is nominally established upon seeing and the other states. If you grasp seeing and the rest as its action or its instrument, that too is not so, since no simile is to be found. Though seven similes are falsely discriminated, they have many faults, and so all three ways do not stand to reason. What faults?
If like a seed, it is impermanent;
as agent, it becomes nominal;
if like one possessed of supernormal power,
it should have conventional mastery.
The exposition: if you suppose the self is to seeing and hearing as a seed is to a sprout, the self must be impermanent, since a seed is not permanent. If you suppose it is as a potter to a pot, the self must be nominal — why? Because the world plainly sees that a nominally named person has the function of making pots, and sees nothing else. If you suppose it is as one who possesses supernormal power in the world can produce transformations, then it incurs the same faults as that person: being conventionally established, and the fault about mastery. Why? Because apart from a nominal person, no other accomplisher of supernormal power is seen. And moreover, one plainly sees that an accomplisher of supernormal power has mastery at will over what he transforms; the self ought likewise to have mastery over seeing and the rest without needing any other condition.
The question that opens this section is the one every reader asks, and the treatise puts it in the plainest form: 誰見誰聞, who sees, who hears? The answer is a trilemma. Either seeing is the self — in which case the self is just a name for seeing, which the opponent denies. Or seeing is what the self does, or the tool it uses — and for either of those one needs a working model, which is what the seven similes were supposed to supply.
The potter simile fails in a way worth pausing on, because it is the most natural model for agency. Yes, a potter makes pots — but a potter is himself a conventional designation over a bundle of aggregates. The world sees potters and 不見餘, sees nothing else besides. Appealing to the potter gets one an agent of exactly the kind under dispute, and no more.
The magician simile is defeated by pressing its own logic: someone with supernormal powers transforms things at will. If the self were like that with respect to seeing, one would see whatever one wished, whenever one wished, needing no eye and no light. That is plainly not our situation.
14. Earth, Space, Knife, and Fire — and the Lamp
復次頌曰：
我如地如空， 應無常無性，
應如二無作， 分明業可得。
論曰：若汝計我於見等業，猶如大地能持萬物者，我應無常，地非常故。若如虛空無障礙故容所作業，我亦如是容見等業者，我應無體，猶如虛空唯色無體，是虛空故。又如大地、虛空，於任持等無動作用，我亦如是，於彼見等應無作用。既無作用，執見者等，不應道理。又大地、虛空，任持、無障二種功能分明可得。我於見等諸所作業無別可得，故不應理。
復次若執見等是我具者，是亦不然。何以故？頌曰：
能燒及能斷， 唯火等所作，
我於見等具， 非如刀火等。
論曰：若汝計我執見等具能見能聞乃至了別，如人執火能燒、執刀能斷者，不應道理。何以故？世間現見離能執人，火自能燒、刀自能割。見等亦爾，雖無有我，亦應自有見等作用，而汝不許，故此非喻。又復世間諸蘊共合假想立為我人眾生，執持鎌等能刈能斷，無別實我，故此非喻。
復次頌曰：
如光能照用， 離光無異體，
是故於內外， 空無我義成。
論曰：現見世間即於光體有能照用說為照者，離光體外無別照者。如是眼等有見等用說為見者，乃至了別者無別見者等，是故內外諸法等無有我。
Furthermore:
If the self is like earth, like space,
it should be impermanent, or without substance;
it should, like those two, have no action —
whereas their functions are plainly found.
The exposition: if you suppose the self is to seeing and the rest as the great earth that supports all things, the self must be impermanent, since earth is not permanent. If as space, which because it is unobstructing accommodates what is done, and the self likewise accommodates seeing and the rest, then the self must be without substance — as space is without substance, being merely the absence of form. Again, as earth and space have no active operation in supporting and the rest, so the self should have no operation with respect to seeing and the rest; and having no operation, to grasp it as the seer does not stand to reason. And the two capacities of earth and space — supporting and being unobstructing — are plainly found; whereas nothing of the self is separately found in seeing and the other actions.
Further, if one holds that seeing and the rest are the self's instruments, that too is not so. Why?
Burning and cutting
are done by fire and the rest alone;
the self with respect to the instruments of seeing
is not like a knife or fire.
The exposition: if you suppose the self grasps the instruments of seeing and the rest and can see, hear, and discriminate — as a person takes up fire and can burn, or takes up a knife and can cut — it does not stand to reason. Why? Because the world plainly sees that apart from any person taking them up, fire burns of itself and a knife cuts of itself. So too with seeing and the rest: though there is no self, they should still have the operation of seeing on their own — which you do not allow, and so this is no simile. Moreover, in the world the aggregates joined together are by imagination established as "I," "person," "being," and it is such a one who takes up a sickle and can reap and cut; there is no separate real self, and so this is no simile.
Furthermore:
As light has the function of illuminating
and apart from light there is no other substance —
therefore in inner and outer things alike
the sense of emptiness and selflessness is established.
The exposition: the world plainly sees that within the substance of light itself there is the function of illuminating, and it is called the illuminator; apart from the substance of light there is no separate illuminator. Just so, the eye and the rest have the function of seeing and are called the seer; down to the discriminator, there is no separate seer. Therefore in inner and outer things alike there is no self.
The lamp is the positive answer the whole sequence has been building toward, and it is worth stating plainly. We say light illuminates. There is no illuminator standing behind the light doing the illuminating — the light is the illuminating. In exactly the same way the eye sees, and there is no seer behind the eye. The grammar of our language supplies a subject for every verb, and the argument is that this subject is a feature of the grammar and not of the world.
The knife simile is defeated by an observation that cuts both ways and is the sharper for it. Fire burns without anyone holding it; a knife left on a rock still cuts what falls on it. So if seeing is an instrument, it should see on its own — which is exactly what the treatise wants to say and what the opponent will not allow. And the second half of the reply adds that the person who takes up a sickle is himself a conventional designation. Whichever end of the simile one grasps, no real self appears.
15. Then Who Is Defiled, Who Acts, Who Is Liberated?
問：若實無我，云何世間有染有淨？答：染淨諸法從因緣生，不由實我。何以故？頌曰：
如世間外物， 離我有損益，
內雖無實我， 染淨義應成。
論曰：如世外物雖無有我，而有種種災橫順益事業成就。如是內法雖無有我，而有種種染淨義成，是故無過。
復次若無我者，誰受果報、誰能作業、誰脫眾苦？頌曰：
位、思、煩惱分， 無常變異故，
我常無轉易， 受、作、脫應無。
論曰：汝所計我，於苦樂等位、善惡等思、貪等煩惱，一切時分常無變異。無變異故，受者、作者及解脫者皆不應理。如前已說，雖無實我而有世俗假者三時變異，受者、作者及解脫者、時分差別皆得成就。
復次若無我者，誰轉誰還？頌曰：
法性從緣生， 展轉現相續，
有因而不住， 變異故名轉。
如身牙河燈， 有種種作用；
我常無變異， 轉還不應理。
論曰：不由有我而有轉還。何以故？現見轉者必有生相，前後相續展轉不斷，恒現在前顯了可見。有因不住而復變異說名流轉，相續斷絕說名還滅。猶如身牙河燈有往來等種種作用及有還滅，非汝所計常無變我有流轉用。流轉尚無，何況還滅。
Question: if there really is no self, how is there defilement and purity in the world? Answer: defiled and pure states arise from causes and conditions, not from a real self. Why?
As with outer things in the world,
apart from a self there is harm and benefit;
so within, though there is no real self,
the sense of defilement and purity is established.
The exposition: as outer things in the world, though they have no self, still undergo all sorts of calamity and benefit and accomplish their work — so inner states, though they have no self, still establish all sorts of defilement and purity. Therefore there is no fault.
Further, if there is no self, who undergoes the recompense, who performs the deeds, who is freed from the many sufferings?
Stages, thoughts, afflictions —
because these are impermanent and alter,
while your self is permanent and does not change,
experiencing, acting, and being freed should be impossible.
The exposition: the self you suppose is at all times permanently unaltering with respect to the stages of pain and pleasure, thoughts good and evil, and the afflictions of craving and the rest. Because it does not alter, an experiencer, an agent, and one liberated do not stand to reason. As stated above, though there is no real self, there is a conventional nominal one that alters in the three times, and experiencer, agent, one liberated, and the differences of time are all established.
Further, if there is no self, who flows on and who returns?
The nature of things arises from conditions,
appearing in continuity, one after another;
having a cause and yet not abiding,
and because it alters it is called flowing on.
Like a body, a shoot, a river, a lamp,
which have various operations —
your self, permanent and unaltering,
cannot flow on or return.
The exposition: it is not through there being a self that there is flowing on and returning. Why? Because what plainly flows must have the mark of arising, continuing one after another without a break, constantly present and plainly seen. Having a cause, not abiding, and altering — this is called flowing on; and the continuum being cut off is called returning to cessation. Just as a body, a shoot, a river, and a lamp have operations of going and coming and also cease — it is not the permanent unaltering self you suppose that has the operation of flowing on. It cannot even flow on, still less return.
The first answer is the pattern for the rest: things outside us are harmed and benefited without anyone supposing they have selves. A field floods, a tree flourishes, a house falls down. Nobody asks who in the field undergoes the flooding. The argument invites the questioner to say what is different about the inside, and no answer is forthcoming that does not simply reassert the self.
The four images — a body, a shoot, a river, a lamp — appeared already in fascicle 9 and return here because they are the whole argument in miniature. Each is a genuine continuity with a name; none is a thing that persists. A river flows on and can also dry up — 流轉 and 還滅, the two terms the questioner wanted a self for. And the closing line turns the objection around completely: the permanent self cannot even do the flowing on, let alone the returning. The self was posited to explain saṃsāra and cannot explain it.
16. Names, and the Ten Faults of an Agent
復次若唯諸行無有我者，世間現見彼彼有情，若名若想差別應無。頌曰：
依我起名想， 見二種過失，
是故遍一切， 實我性都無。
論曰：不由名想實我得成。何以故？見二種過失故。若世間人於實我上起佛救等種種名想者，於身等法彼解應無。若於身等起名想者，不應說我有諸作用。所以者何？世間現見起諸言說，謂佛友能見、德友能聞等。又見二種過失者，若執我見體性是善，任運現前能生染法，不應道理。若是染污能證實我，不應道理。又計我者執取我時，為我能執、為見能執？若言我執我者，不應世間執我之人有起疑惑，謂為有、為無、為是何等？何以故？現見我故。若言見執我者，汝今不應說我能取。由如是等種種過失，是故世間無真實我。
復次若爾，何故於正法中建立名想種種差別？頌曰：
為言說易故、 隨順世間故、
斷除怖畏故、 顯德失二故。
論曰：雖無實我而立有情名想別者，有四種因：一為令言說易故、二順世間故、三令初學者離怖畏故、四為顯自他功德過失有差別故。
Further, if there are only formations and no self, then the differences of name and conception seen in the world among various beings should not exist.
Names and conceptions raised upon a self
are seen to have two faults;
therefore, everywhere and in all,
the nature of a real self is wholly absent.
The exposition: a real self is not established by names and conceptions. Why? Because two faults are seen. If people in the world raised the various names and conceptions "Buddharakṣita" and the rest upon a real self, then their understanding of the body and other states should not exist. If they raise names and conceptions upon the body and the rest, then one should not say that the self has any operations — since the world plainly sees such statements as "Buddhamitra can see, Guṇamitra can hear."
As to the two faults: if one holds that the view of self is by nature wholesome, then that it should spontaneously arise and produce defiled states does not stand to reason. If it is defiled, then that it could realize a real self does not stand to reason. Again, when one who supposes a self takes it up, is it the self that grasps or the view that grasps? If you say the self grasps the self, then people in the world who grasp a self should not have doubts about whether it exists, does not exist, or what it is — since they would plainly see it. If you say the view grasps the self, then you should not say the self takes it up. By such various faults, there is no real self in the world.
Further, if so, why are the various differences of name and conception established within the true Dharma?
Because it makes speech easy;
because it accords with the world;
because it removes fear;
because it displays the two, merit and fault.
The exposition: though there is no real self, differences of name and conception for beings are established for four reasons: to make speech easy; to accord with the world; to free beginners from fear; and to display that one's own and others' merits and faults differ.
The observation about ordinary speech is the strongest thing in the section, and it is drawn from usage rather than metaphysics. We say "Buddhamitra can see, Guṇamitra can hear" — the name is attached to something that has eyes and ears, that is, to the aggregates. If names named selves, they would not be attached to what sees and hears. The naming practice we actually have already treats persons as bodies.
The dilemma about grasping is elegant. Does the self grasp itself, or does the view grasp it? If the self grasps itself, then everyone who believes in a self would be seeing it directly, and nobody would ever wonder whether there is one or what it is like — yet people wonder constantly. So it is the view that does the grasping; and once that is granted, the view explains the belief without the self.
This is the second place the treatise gives the four reasons a nominal self is spoken of; fascicle 9 gave them at the close of its long refutation. T1603 reads 顯得失二, "displaying gain and loss," where T1602 reads 顯德失二, "displaying merit and fault" — and the prose settles it, since the gloss reads 功德過失, merits and faults. Once again the commentary confirms its own verse.
17. The Immediate Sense of a Person, and Ten Faults
復次若無我者，世間不應纔見形相率爾便起有情之覺，又亦不應思覺為先起諸作業。頌曰：
率爾覺亂起， 世間現可得，
覺為先作業， 有十種過失。
論曰：率爾生覺：非證我因。何以故？錯亂覺心率爾而起，現可得故，如於女身起男子覺、於男子身起女人覺、杌起人覺、人起杌覺。又汝計我思覺為先起諸作業，有十種過。何等為十？頌曰：
覺、我、因、功用、 自在等各二，
有因及無因， 當知十種過。
論曰：若汝執覺為因起諸作業，是即非我能起諸業。若我為因、思覺非因，是則應無思覺為先起諸作業。又若汝執以我為因能起作業，即應常起一切作業。若我非因，是即我無所作。又若汝執有餘因法能為因故起諸作業，即所計我無所造作。若更無因，即應常起一切作業。又若汝執由內功用能有所作，此亦如前有二種過失。又若汝執我於作業得自在者，即應常作一切所愛、不作不愛。若不自在，即非我相。
Further, if there were no self, then the world should not, on merely seeing a shape, immediately give rise to the awareness of a being; nor should deliberation come first and deeds follow.
Immediate awareness arises in error —
this is plainly found in the world;
and awareness preceding action
has ten faults.
The exposition: awareness arising immediately is not a proof of a self. Why? Because erroneous awareness also arises immediately, and this is plainly found — as when upon a woman's body one gives rise to the awareness of a man, upon a man's body the awareness of a woman, upon a stump the awareness of a person, and upon a person the awareness of a stump. And your supposing that a self, with deliberation first, sets deeds going has ten faults. What ten?
Awareness, self, cause, exertion,
mastery and the rest — two each;
with a cause and without —
know these as the ten faults.
The exposition: if you hold that awareness is the cause that sets deeds going, then it is not the self that sets deeds going. If the self is the cause and deliberative awareness is not, then there should be no deeds set going with deliberation first. Again, if you hold that with the self as cause deeds are set going, then it should constantly set going all deeds; and if the self is not the cause, then the self does nothing. Again, if you hold that some other causal state serves as cause to set deeds going, then the supposed self performs nothing; and if there is no further cause, it should constantly set going all deeds. Again, if you hold that it acts by an inner exertion, this too has the same two faults as before. And if you hold that the self has mastery over its deeds, then it should always do everything it likes and never do what it dislikes; and if it has no mastery, that is not the mark of a self.
The four examples of immediate error are chosen to cover both directions of both pairs: a woman taken for a man, a man for a woman, a stump for a person, a person for a stump. The opponent's whole case rested on the immediacy of the awareness of a being — it arrives before any reasoning, so it must be perceiving something real. The reply is that plenty of demonstrably false perceptions arrive with exactly the same immediacy. Speed is not evidence.
The ten faults are five dilemmas, and they close the space completely. Whatever is named as the cause of action — awareness, the self, some third factor, inner exertion — either it is the cause, in which case the self is idle, or it is not, in which case nothing explains deliberate action. And the fifth is the plainest: if the self has mastery, we would always do what we like and never what we dislike. Anyone who has broken a resolution knows the answer.
18. Five Kinds of Identity View
如是已說空相及成立。今當顯示觀空真智所治薩迦耶見差別。頌曰：
不審決、遍行、 增益及無事、
於事怖妄見， 譬喻五應知。
論曰：薩迦耶見當知五種。一不審事見，如於繩見蛇。二遍行見，謂染污意相應妄有身見，於一切時常隨行故，如於夢中見所受用。所以者何？猶如貧者於睡夢中自見受用可愛境界。如是愚夫未起真如正覺已來，常起妄計我見隨逐。三增益事見，猶如希望隨屬他女。四無實事見，猶如小兒見幻化事。五於事怖見，如人怖畏自畫藥叉。
The mark of emptiness and its establishing having been stated, the distinctions of the view of a substantial body — which the true knowledge that contemplates emptiness counteracts — are now to be displayed.
Undiscerning; all-pervading;
superimposing; and having no object;
and false views that fear their object —
know these five by their similes.
The exposition: the view of a substantial body is of five kinds. First, the undiscerning view — like seeing a snake in a rope. Second, the all-pervading view — the false view of a body associated with the defiled mentation, which follows along at all times, like seeing things enjoyed in a dream. Why? Just as a poor man in sleep sees himself enjoying pleasing objects, so a foolish worldling, until true awakening to suchness has arisen, constantly gives rise to the falsely supposed view of self, and it follows him. Third, the superimposing view — like desiring a woman who belongs to another. Fourth, the view having no real object — like a child watching a conjuring trick. Fifth, the view that fears its object — like a person frightened by a yakṣa he himself painted.
Five similes for one error, and each catches a different aspect of it. The rope-snake is the classic: a real thing misidentified in haste. The dream is the most poignant — a poor man dreaming he is enjoying luxuries, which names both the pleasure of the sense of self and its complete lack of purchase. The child at a conjuring show believes what is plainly not there. And the last is the sharpest: 怖畏自畫藥叉, a man frightened by a demon he painted himself. The self is not only an invention; it is an invention that terrifies its inventor.
The second is the technically important one, and it is the only one that is not an occasional error. The view of a body associated with 染污意, the defiled seventh consciousness, 於一切時常隨行, follows one at all times — the innate self-grasping described in fascicle 1. The other four come and go; this one is running underneath continuously until awakening.
19. Three Emptinesses, Fourteen Bonds, Six Conceptual Bonds
如是已說所治差別，今當顯示能治差別。頌曰：
無體及遠離， 除遣依三種，
對治諸縛想， 十六種差別。
論曰：依止遍計所執等三種自體，如其次第立三種空：一無體空、二遠離空、三除遣空。又此三空對治諸縛諸想差別，有十六種。諸縛者有十四種相縛、麁重縛應知。一根縛；二有情互染縛；三所依縛，謂依器世間諸根流轉；四於智無智縛；五於境妄境縛；六後有愛縛；七無有愛縛；八執無因不平等因縛；九得上慢縛；十遍計所執自體執縛；十一諸法自體執縛；十二諸法遍智自體執縛；十三補特伽羅自體執縛；十四補特伽羅遍智執縛。
諸想者，謂六種想縛。厭此想故，菩薩依空勤修念住令心解脫。云何名為六種想縛？謂依身受心法發起內想名初想縛；即依身等發起外想是名第二；即依身等起內外想是名第三；為欲度脫十方無量無數有情界故，發起大願修諸念住，此分別想是名第四；於身等境謂有智慧正觀察住，此分別想是名第五；於身等境謂有我人正觀住者，此分別想是名第六。
The distinctions of what is counteracted having been stated, the distinctions of what counteracts are now displayed.
Without substance, keeping apart,
and removing — resting on the three;
counteracting the bonds and conceptions,
there are sixteen distinctions.
The exposition: resting on the three own-natures, the imagined and the rest, three emptinesses are established in order: the emptiness of what has no substance; the emptiness of keeping apart; and the emptiness of removing. And these three emptinesses counteract the distinctions of bonds and conceptions, sixteen in all.
The bonds are fourteen, comprising the bondage of signs and the bondage of coarse heaviness: bondage to the faculties; the bondage of beings defiling one another; bondage to the support, that is, the faculties flowing on in dependence on the receptacle world; bondage with respect to knowledge and non-knowledge; bondage to a false object with respect to an object; bondage to craving for further existence; bondage to craving for non-existence; bondage to grasping no cause or an unequal cause; bondage to overestimating one's attainment; bondage to grasping the substance of the imagined nature; bondage to grasping the substance of things; bondage to grasping the substance of the full knowledge of things; bondage to grasping the substance of a person; and bondage to grasping the full knowledge of a person.
The conceptions are six conceptual bonds. Wearying of these conceptions, a bodhisattva, relying on emptiness, diligently cultivates the establishments of mindfulness so as to liberate the mind. What are the six? Giving rise to an inner conception in dependence on body, feeling, mind, and things is the first; giving rise to an outer conception upon the same is the second; giving rise to an inner and outer conception is the third; and, wishing to liberate the measureless realms of beings in the ten directions, giving rise to a great vow and cultivating the establishments of mindfulness — this discriminating conception is the fourth; supposing that there is wisdom rightly observing and abiding with respect to body and the rest — this discriminating conception is the fifth; and supposing that there is an I or a person rightly observing and abiding — this is the sixth.
The three emptinesses mapped onto the three natures is the section's organizing idea, and it explains why the word "emptiness" behaves differently in different contexts. The imagined nature is empty by having no substance — there is nothing there. The dependent nature is empty by keeping apart — it is there but not as imagined. And the perfectly accomplished is empty by removing — what is taken away is the overlay. One word, three operations.
The six conceptual bonds are the most demanding passage in the chapter because of where they end. The first three are ordinary: taking body and mind as inner, as outer, as both. The fourth is a bodhisattva's great vow to liberate all beings — and it is listed as a bond. So is the fifth, supposing that there is wisdom doing the observing. And the sixth, supposing there is someone doing it. The list climbs from crude self-reference to the subtlest, and it does not spare the vow. What binds at the end is not selfishness but the residual structure of an observer with a project.
20. Eleven Successive Conceptual Bonds, and the Sixteen Emptinesses
又觀身等後後相成，有十一種想縛差別應知。何等十一？謂於身等起隨身等正觀察住，及於染淨二諦第一義中起分別想，名初想縛；即於染污第一義中起有作想，是名第二；即於清淨第一義中起無作想，是名第三；即於有作第一義中起流轉想，是名第四；即於無作第一義中起於常想，是名第五；即於流轉由苦變異故起於苦想，是名第六；即於常法起無變想，是名第七；即於流轉由生滅住異自相故，及由自相有變異故，起自相想，是名第八；即於有變無變染污清淨第一義中起能攝受一切法想，是名第九；即於染淨一切法所起染污清淨我所有想，是名第十；即於染污清淨諸法起於自體自相之想，是名第十一。菩薩摩訶薩於如是後後相成想縛差別及彼境界正觀察已，依止於空修諸念住令心解脫。若於如是諸妄想縛得解脫時，當知解脫一切想縛。
十六空者，所謂內空、外空、內外空、大空、空空、勝義空、有為空、無為空、畢竟空、無初後空、無損盡空、性空、相空、一切法空、無性空、無性自性空。
Again, observing that body and the rest are established each upon the one before, eleven distinctions of conceptual bond should be known. What eleven? Abiding in right observation following upon body and the rest, and giving rise to a discriminating conception within the ultimate sense of the two truths of defilement and purity — this is the first conceptual bond. Giving rise, within the ultimate sense of the defiled, to the conception of what acts — the second. Giving rise, within the ultimate sense of the pure, to the conception of what does not act — the third. Giving rise, within the ultimate sense of what acts, to the conception of flowing on — the fourth. Giving rise, within the ultimate sense of what does not act, to the conception of permanence — the fifth. With respect to flowing on, because of the alteration that is suffering, giving rise to the conception of suffering — the sixth. With respect to permanent things, giving rise to the conception of the unaltering — the seventh. With respect to flowing on, because of the particular marks of arising, ceasing, abiding, and altering, and because those marks alter, giving rise to the conception of particular marks — the eighth. Within the ultimate sense of what alters and does not alter, of the defiled and the pure, giving rise to the conception of what takes up all things — the ninth. With respect to all defiled and pure things, giving rise to the conception of a defiled or pure "mine" — the tenth. With respect to defiled and pure things, giving rise to the conception of their own substance and own mark — the eleventh. When a bodhisattva has rightly observed these successively established distinctions of conceptual bond and their domains, then, relying on emptiness, he cultivates the establishments of mindfulness so as to liberate the mind. And when he is liberated from these false conceptual bonds, know that he is liberated from all conceptual bonds.
The sixteen emptinesses are: inner emptiness; outer emptiness; inner-and-outer emptiness; great emptiness; the emptiness of emptiness; emptiness in the ultimate sense; the emptiness of the conditioned; of the unconditioned; ultimate emptiness; emptiness without beginning or end; emptiness of what is not to be discarded; emptiness of nature; emptiness of marks; emptiness of all things; emptiness of the absence of nature; and emptiness of the very nature of the absence of nature.
The eleven are called 後後相成, each established upon the one before, and that is the point of the list: they are a chain in which each refinement of understanding generates the next subtle attachment. Observe correctly, and a discrimination of defilement and purity arises; discriminate the defiled, and the notion of something acting arises; from acting, flowing on; from flowing on, suffering; from suffering, particular marks — and so on until the eleventh, the conception of things having their own substance and mark. Every step is a correct observation that hardens into a conception.
This is the most demanding thing in the chapter, and it explains why the sixteen emptinesses include the fifth, 空空, the emptiness of emptiness. Having emptied everything, one is left holding emptiness, and that too must go. The sixteen close with an item whose name is almost a stammer — the emptiness of the very nature of the absence of nature — for exactly this reason.
21. Six Confusions and Eight Knowledges
復次於此空境有六種愚無始流轉。何等為六？頌曰：
自性與執著、 不開解、失念、
一切遍、一分， 愚差別流轉。
論曰：自性愚者，謂一切有情無始流轉無智自體。執著愚者，謂諸外道倒見相應所起無智。不開解愚者，謂無聞異生所起無智。失念愚者，謂有聞異生及諸聖者所起無智。一切遍愚者，謂諸異生於眾生空及與法空所起無智。一分愚者，謂聲聞等唯於法空所起無智。
云何證得如是空理？謂由八種智。何等為八？頌曰：
法住、求自心、 住自心、除縛，
怖、無二、染、淨， 證得真空理。
論曰：一法住智，謂依素怛纜等安立法門智。二求自心智，謂於順決擇分位尋自心智。三住自心智，謂於見道位證真如智。四除心縛智，謂於修道位對治障智。五怖行相應智，謂聖弟子智，怖畏流轉大苦惱故。六無二分別智，謂菩薩智，流轉寂滅過惡功德不分別故。七不善清淨智，謂有學智。八善清淨智，謂無學智。
Further, with respect to this domain of emptiness there are six confusions that have flowed on from beginningless time. What six?
Of one's own nature, and of clinging;
not being opened up; loss of mindfulness;
the all-pervading and the partial —
the distinctions of confusion that flow on.
The exposition: confusion of one's own nature is the substance of non-knowledge in all beings flowing on from beginningless time. Confusion of clinging is the non-knowledge arisen in outsiders in association with distorted views. Confusion of not being opened up is the non-knowledge arisen in unlearned ordinary beings. Confusion of lost mindfulness is the non-knowledge arisen in learned ordinary beings and in the noble ones. All-pervading confusion is the non-knowledge arisen in ordinary beings with respect to both the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena. Partial confusion is the non-knowledge arisen in śrāvakas and the rest with respect to the emptiness of phenomena alone.
How is this principle of emptiness realized? By eight knowledges. What eight?
Abiding in the teaching; seeking one's own mind;
abiding in one's own mind; removing bonds;
fear; non-duality; the defiled; the pure —
thus the true principle of emptiness is realized.
The exposition: first, the knowledge of abiding in the teaching — the knowledge that establishes the approaches to the Dharma in dependence on the sūtras and the rest. Second, the knowledge that seeks one's own mind — the knowledge that searches out one's own mind at the stage of the factors conducive to penetration. Third, the knowledge that abides in one's own mind — the knowledge realizing suchness at the stage of the path of seeing. Fourth, the knowledge that removes the mind's bonds — the knowledge counteracting obstructions at the stage of the path of cultivation. Fifth, the knowledge associated with the aspect of fear — the knowledge of noble disciples, since they dread the great anguish of flowing on. Sixth, the non-dual, non-discriminating knowledge — the knowledge of bodhisattvas, since they do not discriminate the faults of flowing on and the merits of quiescence. Seventh, knowledge not well purified — the knowledge of learners. Eighth, knowledge well purified — the knowledge of adepts.
The six confusions sort beings by which ignorance they have, and the fourth is the one that should stop a reader. Confusion of lost mindfulness belongs to learned ordinary beings and to the noble ones. Someone who has seen the truths still has a form of non-knowledge about emptiness — not through never having understood, but through not holding it in mind. And the sixth is equally pointed: the śrāvaka's confusion is partial, concerning the emptiness of phenomena alone. He has fully understood that persons are empty; it is things he has not seen through.
The eight knowledges are a path in miniature, and the first four map cleanly onto the four stages: study the texts; search your own mind at the penetration-factors; abide in it at the path of seeing; remove its bonds on the path of cultivation. The fifth and sixth then contrast the two vehicles by their emotional cast — the śrāvaka's knowledge is 怖行相應, associated with the aspect of fear, dreading saṃsāra; the bodhisattva's does not discriminate between saṃsāra's faults and nirvāṇa's merits at all. It is a difference not of insight but of what the insight feels like.
Fascicle 15 Complete
Two theses established: that all formations are suffering, proved through the suffering of formations rather than through pain, and catalogued into fifty-five kinds with eighteen knowledges to end them; and that they are empty, defined as the absence of two selves which just is the presence of two selflessnesses, and defended through every simile that has been offered for a self — dweller, agent, and instrument alike. The chapter on emptiness is not quite finished; its remainder opens fascicle 16, which then takes up the fourth thesis, that what is empty is without nature.
Continue to Fascicle 16 →