The Formations Skandha

VOLUME 8, Chapter 5

 

L4 Speculation regarding production and destruction.

Sutra:

Fourth, this person thoroughly investigates the formations skandha to the point that it becomes empty. Based on what he sees, in his mind he speculates that each and every living being, in its given body, is half living and half dead. From this he concludes that everything in the world is half finite and half infinite.

Commentary:

Fourth, this person thoroughly investigates the formations skandha to the point that it becomes empty. What is the fourth distinction? It is that of the living and the dead. He examines the formations skandha to the utmost extent, until it becomes empty. Based on what he sees and understands from his investigations, in his mind he speculates that each and every living being, in its given body, is half living and half dead.

This is another false speculation and false attachment. He sees any given living being's body as half living and half dead. Since living beings are like that he draws conclusions about the whole world. From this he concludes that everything in the world is half finite and half infinite. Life is on the side of the finite, and death is on the side of the infinite. That's his conjecture. The more he runs, the farther away he gets.

K3 Concludes that it is an externalist teaching.

Sutra:

Because of these speculations about the finite and the infinite, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the fourth external teaching, which postulates finiteness.

Commentary:

Because of these four speculations about the finite and the infinite. What does he conjecture? If it's not finite, then it's infinite. If it's not infinite, then it's finite. He keeps going back and forth like this, and generally does not stay on the Middle Way. He either goes too far or does not go far enough. Either he runs far away, or he doesn't even take a single step. Therefore, he will lose proper and pervasive knowledge and fall into externalism.

External teachings either go too far, or else they don't go far enough. Neither going too far nor coming up short is the Middle Way. We should cultivate the Middle Way. The Buddha spoke of the ultimate truth of the Middle Way as neither falling into emptiness nor falling into existence. If you lean to the side of emptiness or the side of existence, then you fall into duality. It's called an external teaching because there are two sides. And he will become confused about the true Bodhi nature. He does not recognize Bodhi. This is the fourth external teaching, which postulates finiteness.

J5 Four kinds of sophistry.
K1 Describes the source and shows the error.

Sutra:

Further, in his practice of samadhi, the good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate on what he knows and sees, he could fall into error with four distorted, false theories, which are total speculation based on the sophistry of immortality.

Commentary:

Further, in his practice of samadhi, the good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. This refers to all good people who are cultivating and abiding in samadhi; this samadhi is cultivated by many people, not just one. Since the cultivator has a steady mind in which samadhi and wisdom are equally balanced, there is no opening for the demons to get at him. But although external demons cannot bother him, internal demons arise. Internal demons are the demons created from transformations in his own mind.

He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. He looks into the origin of the twelve categories of living beings, examining the primal purity of their nature. The constant fluctuation is a very subtle, attenuated motion that occurs in the formations skandha.

But if he begins to speculate on what he knows and sees. Before he has such thoughts, there is no problem. But as soon as those thoughts arise, there is trouble. As it's said, "Opening the mouth is a mistake. Entertain a thought is wrong." As soon as you have a false thought problems arrive.

He could fall into error with four distorted, false theories, which are total speculation based on the sophistry of immortality. Total speculation refers to the "nature that is totally speculation and attachment", which I have discussed before. It is a kind of false attachment. He becomes attached to something that is not true.

[January 1983]

Looking into the question of "Who is reciting the Buddha's name?" is called "investigation." As I have said many times before, investigation means concentrating on one thing.

With concentration, it is efficacious.
With distraction, nothing is obtained.

Concentration can be compared to drilling a hole with an awl or to using a diamond drill to drill steel. The drill penetrating to the other side represents enlightenment. "Who is reciting the Buddha's name?" refers to reciting in one's mind.

"Investigating" means searching, which is different from "speculating." Searching means concentrating and looking in one place, searching for "Who?" It means looking into a principle. Speculating, on the other hand, is not a single thought. Rather, it involves thinking about this and about that, and making comparisons. Speculation means having a lot of false thoughts, while investigation consists of one false thought.

One who is speculating thinks about several things and cannot make up his mind. He thinks about the heavens and wonders what kind of clothes God wears, what kind of hat he wears, how big his eyes are, how long his ears are, and how wide his nose is. He speculates on God's measurements, trying to measure God's size in inches and feet. But ultimately, is God really the way he speculates him to be? He's never seen God, so his measurements may not be right.

He also thinks about the earth, speculating on the earth's gravitational pull. How big is the earth's center? How large is the earth's surface area? How many specks of dust are there on the earth? He estimates that the earth is composed of a hundred million times eighty-four thousand specks of dust amassed together. He's guessing and calculating on his own, but probably even a computer wouldn't be able to compute this figure. He tries to use himself as a computer to compute it but he can't come up with the head or tail of an answer, so he thinks it's rather freaky.

Therefore, "investigating" does not fall under the formations skandha; it is not under form, feeling, thinking, formations, or consciousness. "Reciting" means you recite in your mind, concentrating single-mindedly. For example, when you recite "Namo Amitabha Buddha," there is only the phrase "Namo Amitabha Buddha," and you have no other false thoughts. This is called fighting poison with poison. If you have lots of false thoughts, then the poison is too great and you will surely die.

K2 Detailed explanation of their appearance.
L1 Eight sophistries.

Sutra:

First, this person contemplates the source of transformations. Seeing the movement and flow, he says there is change. Seeing the continuity, he says there is constancy. Where he can perceive something, he says there is production. Where he cannot perceive anything, he says there is destruction. He says that the unbroken continuity of causes is increasing and that the pauses within the continuity are decreasing. He says that the arising of all things is existence and that the perishing of all things is nonexistence.

The light of reason shows that his application of mind has led to inconsistent views. If someone comes to seek the dharma, asking about its meaning, he replies, "I am both alive and dead, both existent and nonexistent, both increasing and decreasing." He always speaks in a confusing way, causing that person to forget what he was going to say.

Commentary:

First, this person, who is about to go down the path of confusion, contemplates the source of transformations in his formations skandha. Seeing the movement and flow, he says there is change. He observes the flowing of the formations skandha and says it is undergoing changes. Seeing the continuity, he says there is constancy. Perceiving the formations skandha continuing on without cease, he calls it constancy. "Constant" means unchanging. Change implies impermanence, while lack of change implies permanence.

Where he can perceive something, he says there is production. When he contemplates the formations skandha, some areas are visible to him. He sees the subtle movements and describes them as "production." Where he cannot perceive anything, he says there is destruction. He cannot detect the tiny movements of the formations skandha, so he says this is "destruction." In other words, he can perceive the events within eighty thousand great eons, so he says they have come into being. He cannot see the events beyond eighty thousand eons, so he says they have ceased to be. This is similar to the previous cases.

He says that the unbroken continuity of causes is increasing. When the causes continue without interruption, he says there's an increase. That's another aspect of the formations skandha that he perceives. And that the pauses within the continuity are decreasing. Within the continuity there are pauses, and he says they are a decrease.

For example, when the twenty-five sages described their perfect penetrations, one of them talked about the pause between inhaling and exhaling. That is also a "pause." He calls the pauses within the continuity "decreasing." But you shouldn't follow his theories, because he is making up his own terminology based on his perceptions, and they are fundamentally untrue. Don't look for rational principles in his theories. He just made them up, and they are totally irrational. That's why these are considered the views of external sects. There is no truth in them.

He says that the arising of all things is existence. He watches things arise within the formations skandha, and he calls that existence. And that the perishing of all things is nonexistence. He calls the place where everything passes away and nothing exists "nonexistent." These are the four distorted theories. The light of reason shows that his application of mind has led to inconsistent views.

If you examine his theories in light of reason, you see that they are all wrong. He used his mind in the wrong way. At this time, if someone comes to seek the dharma, asking about its meaning, requesting instruction on the principles of Buddhism, he replies to the person, "I am both alive and dead, both existent and nonexistent, both increasing and decreasing."

He always speaks in a confusing way. He invariably defends both sides of the issue. If he isn't talking about existence, then he's talking about nonexistence. If he's not discussing emptiness, then he's discussing form. Because he speaks from both sides, he cannot find the Middle Way, causing that person who is seeking the dharma to forget what he was going to say.

Faced with the first person's nonsensical explanations, the questioner forgets all his questions and cannot recall what he came to seek instruction in. What kind of instruction would you call that? People come wanting to understand, but the cultivator confuses them until they lose all sense of what is right. They lose not only their train of thought, but also their original wisdom and clarity of mind. This person is confused, and he makes others confused, too.

L2 The sophistry of only "no."

Sutra:

Second, this person attentively contemplates his mind and finds that everything is nonexistent. He has a realization based on nonexistence. When anyone comes to ask him questions, he replies with only one word. He only says "No." Aside from saying "no," he does not speak.

Commentary:

The person only knows about nothingness, so he talks in a crazy way. He denies the existence of everything. No matter what you ask him, he says "no." That's the only word he says. Second, this person attentively contemplates and examines his mind and finds that everything is nonexistent. Among the twelve categories of living beings, he feels that in the mind of the formations skandha, everything is gone. At the point where he sees nothing, he has a realization based on nonexistence. He thinks that he has attained wisdom based on "nonexistence." Actually, he doesn't understand. He has gone too far overboard, and his views are completely irrational. He's enlightened. What did he enlighten to? The word "no."

So when anyone comes to ask him questions, he replies with only one word. People think he must be a seasoned cultivator, because he keeps his eyes shut and nurtures his spirit, not saying a word all day long. He eats nothing except a few bananas. Thinking that he is a sage, they request the dharma from him. When they do, he really knows how to put on an act by giving one-word replies. This tactic is called "One-word Chan." People call it that because they don't understand what he's talking about. No matter what you ask him, he only says "No."

"How should I cultivate?" you ask.

"No."

"Should I recite the Buddha's name?"

"No."

"Do you think it would be a good idea to observe the moral rules and receive the precepts?"

"No."

His continual response of "no" bewilders you and you forget what you were going to say. You wonder, "What does he mean by 'no'? No what?" You can't figure it out, but then it finally hits you, "Oh! There really is nothing. It's truly nothing." Aside from saying 'no,' he does not speak. You may ask him one question, ten questions, a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand questions, but he will always answer 'no.' Then you think, "The Chan principles he's talking about must be too lofty; that's why we can't understand them."

L3 The sophistry of only 'yes'.

Sutra:

Third, this person attentively contemplates his mind and finds that everything is existent. He has a realization based on existence. When anyone comes to ask him questions, he replies with only one word. He only says 'Yes.' Aside from saying 'yes,' he does not speak.

Commentary:

In the third kind of false sophistry, this person attentively contemplates his mind and finds that everything is existent. He looks into his mind and sees that the twelve categories of living beings all undergo birth and death in this place of existence. He has a realization based on existence. Actually, he has not realized any fruition. The sutra only says that in order to describe his mistake: He contemplates living beings and says, "Ah! They all exist." Perceiving this principle, he thinks he has become enlightened and has realized the fruition.

When anyone comes to ask him questions, he replies with only one word. No matter what dharma he is asked about, he only says "Yes."

"Would it be a good idea for me to leave the home-life and become a monk?" you ask him.

"Yes."

"Would it be good for me to take the five precepts?"

"Yes."

"What would be the best thing for me to do?"

"Yes."

Aside from saying "yes," he does not speak. He doesn't say anything but "yes," so you think, "Oh! This is really one-word Chan. He must be a lofty Sanghan. The dharma he speaks is so wonderful that I don't even understand it." It's wonderful precisely because you don't understand it. For example, if you understand what I'm now lecturing in this sutra, then it's not wonderful. "The dharma master keeps talking and talking, but I don't understand what's he saying," you may say.

In that case, it's wonderful for you. Simply because you don't understand, it is wonderful. Once you understand it, it's not wonderful anymore. Why not? Because you understand it! Whatever you don't understand is wonderful. Therefore, if you want the wonderful, don't study the Buddhadharma. If you don't study, then you won't know it and it will be wonderful. Regardless of what you say, he says "yes." Why is that? He believes he has become enlightened on account of the word "yes," and so he's transmitting that dharma to you.

L4 The sophistry of existence and non-existence.

Sutra:

Fourth, this person perceives both existence and nonexistence. Experiencing this branching, his mind becomes confused. When anyone comes to ask questions, he tells them, "Existence is also nonexistence. But within nonexistence there is no existence." It is all sophistry and does not stand up under scrutiny.

Commentary:

His fourth fallacious theory concerns existence and nonexistence. What is this theory? He says things both exist and do not exist. But he says things that don't exist cannot also exist and things that exist cannot also not exist. He does not know whether it's existent or nonexistent. He talks wildly, like a drunkard.

Fourth, this person perceives both existence and nonexistence within the formations skandha. He perceives the formations skandha to be like waves flowing ceaselessly, so he says that it exists. He says the pauses within the ceaseless flow are nonexistence. Experiencing this branching, his mind becomes confused.

His state has produced a branching off, just like on a tree, so he declares that things both exist and do not exist. His mind is confused because he doesn't have any true wisdom or samadhi. His wisdom and his samadhi are not balanced. At this point he becomes attached and cannot find his way out of the mess. He's confronted with a wrong road and doesn't know which road is right.

When anyone comes to ask questions and request instruction in the dharma, he tells them, "Existence is also nonexistence. Things that exist also do not exist. But within nonexistence there is no existence. But things that do not exist cannot come into existence." What already exists is also nonexistent. However, what is nonexistent does not exist. Ultimately, what kind of theory is that? It is all sophistry. That kind of reasoning is fallacious. He doesn't know what he's saying. That's why I said that he talks like a drunkard.

And what he says does not stand up under scrutiny. There's no way to hold a reasonable discussion with him. What can you do then? You can only use my method, which is to slap him across the mouth and see if he still talks about existence and nonexistence. If you slap him, he might react by asking, "Why did you hit me?" "But you don't exist, remember? So my slapping you also doesn't exist!" There's another tactic, you can take a knife and say, "Hey! I'm gonna kill you," and see whether or not he exists. You cannot reason with him. What he says cannot stand up under scrutiny, and you shouldn't ask him about it.

K3 Concludes that it is an externalist teaching.

Sutra:

Because of these speculations, which are empty sophistries, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the fifth external teaching, which postulates four distorted, false theories that are total speculation based on the sophistry of immortality.

Commentary:

Because of these four theories or speculations, which are empty sophistries. His theories are impossible imaginings. The things he says simply cannot be. There is no truth in his doctrines. For that reason, he will fail into externalism. Why is it called an external teaching? Because the principles in it are improper. His knowledge and views are wrong, so the principles he expounds are not ultimate. They don't get to the bottom of things. And he will become confused about the Bodhi nature. He doesn't know the true path to enlightenment. The genuine path of Bodhi is not clear to him. This is the fifth external teaching, which postulates four distorted, false theories that are total speculation based on the sophistry of immortality.

In the first theory, he says that he is both alive and dead, both existent and non-existent, both increasing and decreasing. In the second case, he answers all questions with the word "no." He says "No, no, no" all day long, never saying any other word. No matter what anyone says to him, he just says "no." If you ask a thousand or ten thousand questions, you'll get that many replies of "no." In the third case, he says "yes" to everything.

"Can I be a thief?" you ask.

"Yes."

"Can I take the precepts?"

"Yes."

"Is it all right to eat excrement?"

"Yes."

"Is it all right to drink urine?"

"Yes."

"Can you die?"

"Yes."

"Can you go on living in this world?"

"Yes."

No matter what you say, he says "yes," a thousand or ten thousand times. There is nothing that is not a "yes." His "yes" signifies existence, everything exists.

In the fourth case, which is the one under discussion right now, he says that existence implies non-existence, but that non-existence does not imply existence. Ultimately, what kind of principle is that? It's the kind of principle that he expounds these four distorted theories based on the sophistry of immortality. His theories are incoherent and unclear.

They are total speculation, with no reality to them. In the past I explained

1) the nature that is totally speculation and attachment,
2) the nature that arises dependent on something else, and
3) the perfectly accomplished real nature.

I don't know if everyone is clear about the principle. What is the "nature that is totally speculation and attachment"? Suppose you see a rope lying on the ground on a night when there isn't much moonlight. You may think, "Oh, is it a snake?" That's the "nature that is totally speculation and attachment". Actually, it's a rope, but you make the false judgment that it is a snake. Suppose you see the silhouette of a tree or a plant on a moonless night, and you think, "Oh, could that be a ghost?" and you get scared.

Maybe at night you see a dog, and you think, "Oh, is that a wolf or a tiger?" That's the "nature that is totally speculation and attachment" at work. When you get a better look, you realize that it's just a dog, not a wolf or a tiger. That's the "the nature that arises dependent on something else'". Based on the dog, your "nature that is totally speculation and attachment" comes into being. It is really a dog. What is a dog? It is an animal. Because you have the "nature that is totally speculation and attachment", you mistake it for a wok, a tiger, or some sort of strange creature. The same thing happens when you see a plant.

You thought that rope was a snake, but when you get a better look, you see that it's only a rope. The rope is called the "nature that arises dependent on something else". What is the "nature that arises dependent on something else"? Well, what is the rope made from? It's made from hemp. The hemp is called the "perfectly accomplished real nature". Hemp can be made into a rope, and that is the "nature that arises dependent on something else".

Based on the "perfectly accomplished real nature", the "nature that arises dependent on something else" comes into being. Then when you do not see and recognize it dearly, the "nature that is totally speculation and attachment" comes into being. Here the follower of this external teaching is the same. What he says isn't the way things really are. He comes up with these false theories that are totally based on speculation and attachment.

previous    next    Contents

Volume 8 pages:  1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13    14    15    16

17    18    19    20    21    22    23    24    25    26    27    28    29    30    31    32    33

return to top