Observing the Five Aggregates to Cut Through the View of Self (Part 2)
Chapter One: What is the "Self" Referred to in the Five Aggregates
1. Which Self-View is to be Severed in Severing the View of Self?
To sever the view of self (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is to sever the view regarding which self. Only by clarifying this issue can one sever the view of self. If one does not even know which self's view is to be severed, then one cannot sever the view of self; the goal is unclear, so naturally it cannot be achieved. The holder of the view of self is, of course, the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), specifically the seven consciousnesses within the five aggregates, mainly the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Whichever dharmas the sixth and seventh consciousnesses regard as self, one must cause the sixth and seventh consciousnesses to negate those dharmas, to no longer recognize those dharmas as self, or to confirm that those dharmas are not self. Only then is the view of self severed. In summary, it is the view of self held by the sixth and seventh consciousnesses that is severed.
Some people mistakenly believe it is the view of self held by the eighth consciousness that is to be severed. However, in reality, the eighth consciousness has no view of self. It does not regard any dharma as itself, nor does it regard the eighth consciousness itself as self. Therefore, the eighth consciousness has no view of self. Even if the eighth consciousness had a view of self, how could one sever it? There is simply no way to approach this, as the sixth and seventh consciousnesses cannot communicate or interact with the eighth consciousness. How could they cause the eighth consciousness to sever its view of self? Therefore, the subject of the "self" whose view is to be severed is the sixth and seventh consciousnesses within the five aggregates. One must find a way for the sixth and seventh consciousnesses to sever their view of self in order to liberate them from the birth and death within the five aggregates. Others believe the aggregate of form (rūpa-skandha) also has a view of self and should be severed. However, the aggregate of form is material form (rūpa-dharma), which is not a conscious mind; it has no thoughts, concepts, or notion of self. How could the aggregate of form sever a view of self? It is the sixth and seventh consciousnesses that regard the aggregate of form as self. Therefore, one must cause the sixth and seventh consciousnesses to sever the view that the aggregate of form is self.
2. What is Meant by the Absence of Self in the Five Aggregates?
"Self" signifies sovereignty, autonomy, permanence, and substantial reality. The five aggregates lack these characteristics and properties. Therefore, the five aggregates are not self; they cannot be controlled, lack sovereignty, are not autonomous, are not permanent, and are not substantially real. The five aggregates signify destructibility, perishability, impermanence, and emptiness. By contemplating and realizing this principle, one realizes the absence of self and the non-self nature of the five aggregates.
The eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha, is irrelevant here. Śrāvakas, knowing merely that there exists an eighth consciousness that is neither born nor destroyed and is the basis of the five aggregates, can completely sever the view of self. Those non-Buddhists who encountered the Buddha and attained the fourth fruition of Arhatship within minutes of hearing the Dharma had no time to understand the eighth consciousness, did not know its meaning, and certainly had no time to contemplate the relationship between the five aggregates and the eighth consciousness. They could not have contemplated and concluded that the five aggregates lack the eighth consciousness or that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness. Yet they indeed attained Arhatship and attained Nirvāṇa before the Buddha.
In the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the Buddha taught his disciples contemplation for attaining fruition. The entire sutta, from beginning to end, never mentions that the basis of the five aggregates is the eighth consciousness. Throughout the entire process of contemplation, the disciples did not involve the eighth consciousness at all; they did not contemplate the eighth consciousness, nor did they link the five aggregates with the eighth consciousness in their contemplation. Ultimately, many disciples realized the suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and non-self nature of the five aggregates, attaining the purity of the Dharma-eye from the first to the fourth fruition. Therefore, the conclusion of non-self (anātman) absolutely does not imply that the five aggregates lack the eighth consciousness. The non-self of the five aggregates does not mean the absence of the eighth consciousness; it means the absence of a substantial entity, sovereignty, and permanence.
3. What is the "Self" Referred to in "The Five Aggregates are Self" and "The Five Aggregates are Not Self"?
"The five aggregates are self," "The five aggregates are not self" – what does this "self" refer to? Ordinary people (pr̥thagjana) regard the five aggregates as self; sages regard the five aggregates as not self. What exactly does this "self" refer to?
Some say this "self" refers to the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha. Is this view correct? If it were correct, then ordinary people, because they have a "self," regard the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha. Do ordinary people have such cognition and such thoughts and views? Certainly not. If they had such thoughts and views, every one of them would not be an ordinary person but would directly surpass the Three Worthy Stages (Tri-viśeṣa-bhūmi) and become a Noble Bodhisattva on the Grounds (Bhūmi). Only Bodhisattvas on the Grounds have the ability to observe that all aspects of the five aggregates and eighteen elements (dhātus) are entirely of the nature of the Tathāgatagarbha, that their substance is all Tathāgatagarbha, realizing one part or multiple parts of the One True Dharma Realm (ekadharmadhātu). If one can realize that the entire Dharma Realm is the One True Dharma Realm, then one is a Buddha.
Therefore, it is impossible for ordinary people to have the wisdom and cognition that the five aggregates are the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha. In fact, ordinary sentient beings do not have such thoughts, views, or cognition. Even ordinary sentient beings who study Buddhism mostly do not know of the existence of the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha. Of those who know, many do not acknowledge its reality and non-deceptiveness. Naturally, having not realized it, they do not regard the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha. Sentient beings in the three lower realms (tri-durgati) are especially unable to link the five aggregates with the eighth consciousness. Yet sentient beings in the three lower realms all have the view of self; they all regard their own five-aggregate body as self and belonging to self, fiercely protecting it. Animals, in particular, are extremely ignorant; they have no concepts in their minds, they simply know the five-aggregate body as self (though without the explicit concept "self"), but this does not hinder their self-protection, because the manas (seventh consciousness) knows the five-aggregate body as self without language, words, or thought, knowing nothing else.
In this case, ordinary sentient beings certainly do not need to study the Four Noble Truths and contemplate the five aggregates to negate the absolute truth that the five aggregates are the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha, thereby arriving at the erroneous conclusion that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha. This conclusion directly negates the profound wisdom of Vijñapti-mātra (Consciousness-Only) held by Bodhisattvas on the Grounds, contradicts the correct principle of Vijñapti-mātra, and also contradicts the correct principle of the One True Dharma Realm taught in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Therefore, concluding upon fruition attainment that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness, the Tathāgatagarbha, means one has not attained fruition, nor has one engaged in true contemplation (vipaśyanā), nor undergone a genuine process of cultivation. Those who have undergone a true cultivation process could never arrive at such a conclusion. This is a wrong path (mithyā-mārga) of contemplation for severing the view of self; it cannot yield the correct fruition of severing the view of self, cannot attain the purity of the Dharma-eye, and cannot lead to liberation.
After attaining fruition, one regards the five aggregates as suffering, empty, impermanent, not permanent, not real, not autonomous, and without sovereignty. Thus, one gradually abandons such five aggregates, gradually ceases to cling to them, afflictions (kleśa) gradually disappear and cease, and thus one attains liberation. After truly severing the view of self, these statements become meaningless; one's personal experience is the most real, reliable, and trustworthy. Without words, the mind knows how it is.
4. What is the "Self" Referred to in "The Five Aggregates are Self" and "The Five Aggregates are Not Self"?
The contemplation for severing the view of self is extremely important. Clarifying which "self" it is that regards the five aggregates as self is crucial. If one does not even understand which "self" within the five aggregates holds the view of self, how can one sever the view of self? The holders of the view of self are consciousness (mano-vijñāna, sixth consciousness) and manas (seventh consciousness). The eighth consciousness absolutely has no view of self. Therefore, severing the view of self means severing the view of self held by consciousness and manas, causing consciousness and manas to confirm that the five aggregates are neither self nor belonging to self. "Not self" here also refers to consciousness and manas, not to the eighth consciousness.
The "self" of the five aggregates and the sixth and seventh consciousnesses is characterized by destructibility, perishability, and birth-death transformation. Therefore, the five aggregates and the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are not self; they are without self. The eighth consciousness is not destructible, not perishable; it is permanent and indestructible. It is conventionally called "self," but it lacks self-nature (ātman-svabhāva); it lacks the sovereign self-nature of the seven consciousnesses. Therefore, the eighth consciousness is also without self. Thus, contemplating the non-self of the five aggregates means contemplating the destructibility, perishability, and birth-death transformation of the five aggregates and the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Upon confirming this, one severs the view of self held by the sixth and seventh consciousnesses that regards the five aggregates as self and belonging to self. If one regards the "self" in "non-self" as the eighth consciousness, that is substituting concepts, resulting in the inability to sever the view of self.
Since beginningless time, manas has always regarded the five aggregates as the real self and clung to it. Consciousness, influenced by manas, similarly regards the five aggregates as the real self and belonging to self. Why does this "self" refer to consciousness and manas, not the eighth consciousness? Because since beginningless time, sentient beings have not known the principle of the existence of the eighth consciousness. They could not possibly treat the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness; they do not have the view of self that the five aggregates *are* the eighth consciousness. Therefore, severing the view of self does not involve contemplating that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness. If sentient beings could regard the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness, they would empty the five aggregates, would not cling to them, would have no view of self or clinging to self, and thus no six destinies of rebirth. This is what Buddhas and Bodhisattvas rejoice in.
If this were the case, Buddhas would not need to come to the Sahā world to teach the Dharma and ferry beings across. Therefore, the result of contemplating the non-self of the five aggregates is not realizing that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness, or that the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are not the eighth consciousness, but realizing that the entirety of the five aggregates is perishable, subject to birth-death transformation, and that there is no so-called "self" existing. Thus, one no longer clings to the five aggregates, and clinging to self (ātma-grāha) gradually dissolves.
5. The True Meaning of Person-Without-Self (Pudgala-nairātmya)
Person-without-self is the realization of Śrāvaka and Bodhisattva sages, who realize the non-self of the five aggregates to different degrees and from different perspectives. Those who fully realize the non-self of the five aggregates are the fourth-fruition Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and great Bodhisattvas of the eighth bhūmi and above. Opposed to person-without-self is person-with-self, regarding the five-aggregate person as having self-nature, as being self and belonging to self. This is the wrong view of ordinary sentient beings; such wrong views can cause the suffering of birth and death in the six destinies.
If sentient beings regard the five-aggregate body as the five-aggregate body, consider it substantially real, as self and belonging to self, this is the ignorant view leading to birth and death. If sentient beings do not regard the five-aggregate body as the five-aggregate body, but regard it as produced by the eighth consciousness, as the functional manifestation of the eighth consciousness, its essence being the eighth consciousness, then such sentient beings have eliminated the view of self that the five aggregates are self, have realized the non-self of the five aggregates, that the five aggregates lack real attributes, being entirely attributes of the eighth consciousness. This is the realization of Mahāyāna Bodhisattvas. Thus, the karmic results of birth and death in the six destinies gradually cease, and one can liberate from the three realms (traidhātuka). However, Bodhisattvas do not depart from the three realms.
A Bodhisattva who has severed the view of self has realized person-without-self. They do not regard a person as a person, do not regard the aggregate of form as the aggregate of form, do not regard the aggregate of feeling as the aggregate of feeling, do not regard the aggregate of perception as the aggregate of perception, do not regard the aggregate of mental formations as the aggregate of mental formations, do not regard the six sense bases as the six sense bases, do not regard the six sense objects as the six sense objects, do not regard the six consciousnesses as the six consciousnesses. Instead, they regard them all as attributes of the eighth consciousness, as functional manifestations of the eighth consciousness. Precisely because the five aggregates and eighteen elements *are* the eighth consciousness, the non-self of the five aggregates does not mean the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness.
Therefore, the true meaning of person-without-self is not that the person is not the eighth consciousness, but that the person lacks the attributes of a person, that the person is not the self of a person, that the attributes of a person are not established, that the functionality of a person is unreal, that the functionality of a person is impermanent, subject to birth and death, transformation, and is also bestowed by the eighth consciousness. After severing the view of self in this way, one no longer regards the five-aggregate body as self or having self, no longer considers the five-aggregate body as belonging to self; the mind no longer has the so-called "self." Sentient beings cling to self because they regard the five aggregates as self; thus they have clinging to self and the suffering of birth and death. If sentient beings all regard the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness, they would realize non-self; the mind would no longer have "self." After the mind no longer has "self," clinging to self gradually lessens until finally clinging to self is completely severed. Without clinging, there is no birth and death; one is freed from the suffering of rebirth.
6. "The Five Aggregates are Not the Eighth Consciousness" is Not the Conclusion of Śrāvaka Contemplation
Since sentient beings, since beginningless time, have not known that there is an indestructible eighth consciousness permanently dwelling within the five-aggregate body, sentient beings do not have the view of self that the five aggregates *are* the eighth consciousness. When contemplating the five aggregates to sever the view of self, there is no need to compare the five aggregates with the eighth consciousness, saying the five aggregates are impermanent while the eighth consciousness is permanent, the five aggregates are subject to birth and death while the eighth consciousness is beyond birth and death, and therefore concluding that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness, thereby severing the view of self that the five aggregates are the self of the eighth consciousness. Such comparison and inference are completely unnecessary. Without the premise, there is no subsequent conclusion.
Even if there were a premise – that sentient beings all regard the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness – this is not a view of self; it is precisely the absence of the view of self, it is the cognition of non-self. When Mahāyāna Bodhisattvas practicing Chan (Dhyāna) breakthrough (破参, po can) and realize the eighth consciousness, the Chan-practicing Bodhisattva knows that the five aggregates are produced by the eighth consciousness, are part of the eighth consciousness, precisely *are* the eighth consciousness. After a Bodhisattva enters the first bhūmi, they gradually observe that all dharmas are the true thusness, the eighth consciousness. Then the five aggregates are even more the eighth consciousness; the entirety is the true thusness eighth consciousness, dharmas within the One True Dharma Realm. If sentient beings, since beginningless time, had a view of self regarding the five aggregates as the self of the eighth consciousness, then sentient beings since beginningless time would have been Bodhisattvas on the Grounds, possessing the wisdom of Vijñapti-mātra (唯识种智), and could not have had birth and death in the six destinies.
Moreover, when the Buddha first taught the Āgama Sūtras, he told his disciples that within the five-aggregate body there is a permanent dharma, neither born nor destroyed, which is the basis for the sentient being's five aggregates. After hearing this from the Buddha, the disciples accepted the Buddha's words in faith, knowing there is an indestructible eighth consciousness, while the five aggregates are impermanent, subject to birth and death. The five aggregates are absolutely not the permanent eighth consciousness; therefore, one needs to cultivate concentration (samādhi) and contemplate the impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self of the five aggregates, confirming that the five aggregates are destructible, the sixth and seventh consciousnesses are destructible, and there is no self or belonging to self. Therefore, the conclusion of contemplation for severing the view of self is not that the five aggregates are not the self of the eighth consciousness, but that the five aggregates are impermanent, perishable, suffering, not (the manas) self, nor belonging to (the manas) self.
7. Why the Five Aggregates are Without Self and Belonging to Self
Because the five aggregates and eighteen elements are subject to birth and death, are illusory appearances, and lack inherent sovereignty, they are not self. For example, a pile of wood, earth, and water mixed together according to certain principles forms a house. This house is an illusory appearance subject to birth and death; it lacks autonomy. It can collapse and scatter at any moment; it cannot be regarded as an autonomous, substantially real dharma to be grasped as a house.
Similarly, the so-called "self" of the five aggregates is also composed of the combination of the seven primary elements (earth, water, fire, wind, space, consciousness, perception). It is also a dharma subject to birth and death, unreal, lacking autonomy, lacking self-sovereignty. It cannot be regarded as self, nor as belonging to self. Therefore, the five aggregates are not self nor belonging to self; there is no self nor belonging to self. There is no need to crave, cling, or grasp them. One should not regard dharmas assembled from various components as a self that can be relied upon or depended on. Then, after ceasing to rely on or depend on the compounded dharmas, what remains? If there is such a thought in the mind, wondering "what remains," the view of self has not been completely severed; there is still grasping, still seeking, so there is still birth and death, still suffering.
If the "self" to be severed in severing the view of self is not understood, one cannot truly sever the view of self. If one arrives at a conclusion like "the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness, are different from the eighth consciousness, yet not different from the eighth consciousness," then one has not severed the view of self, nor has one engaged in true and proper contemplation of the five aggregates and eighteen elements. The mind still harbors the "self" of the five aggregates and eighteen elements; one has not eliminated the "self" of the five aggregates and eighteen elements; it is merely the consciousness thinking that the five aggregates and eighteen elements are not the eighth consciousness. Emptiness (śūnyatā) – this meaning is extremely important. At the end of contemplation, one knows the five aggregates and eighteen elements are empty. What is emptiness? Ultimately, emptiness is non-self. If there is something that is not empty, then there is self. Who could regard an empty dharma as (the manas) self? Only those who have not contemplated the emptiness of the five aggregates.
8. Who is the "Self" that Regards the Body as Self?
The body is not self, nor belonging to self. "I" dwell in this body; once the body disappears, "I" must seek another body to dwell in. Who is this "I" here? Who regards the body as self and belonging to self? This "I" refers to that one. Firstly, the Tathāgatagarbha certainly does not regard the body as self or belonging to self. It does not wish to use the body to do or not do anything; in the operation of worldly dharmas, it is without intention (无心). Therefore, this "I" does not refer to the Tathāgatagarbha.
Since beginningless time, it is the seventh consciousness, manas, that regards the body as self. Since beginningless time, it is the seventh consciousness, manas, that continuously clings to the body as self. Therefore, this "I" primarily refers to the seventh consciousness. Within the five aggregates, the mental activities of the five sense consciousnesses are very coarse, having almost no concept or view of self. Consciousness has thoughts and concepts of self, but when seeking a body to inhabit during rebirth, consciousness is powerless. Consciousness dwelling in the body is not continuous; it cannot be the master of the body, cannot bear primary responsibility. Therefore, this "I" mainly refers to manas. To have something to dwell in and utilize is what manas most attends to and clings to. To take rebirth and possess a material body is what manas most cares about and clings to. The functional activities of the five aggregates are what manas most wants to grasp. Therefore, manas's view of self is deeply rooted and most stubborn. Once manas realizes that the material body and five aggregates are not self nor belonging to self, its stubborn clinging to the material body and five aggregates will gradually be completely severed, gradually freeing it from all suffering within the five-aggregate world.
Because the Chinese language lacks sufficient vocabulary, Buddhist terminology and worldly terms cannot be separated, leading to many misunderstandings regarding the precise expression of Dharma meanings. For example, the word "true" (真) is used in both worldly and Buddhist contexts. What "true" means in worldly contexts versus what it means in Buddhism is generally impossible for ordinary people to distinguish, often leading to confusion. This is especially true for those who have studied the Mahāyāna Tathāgatagarbha Dharma; whenever "true" is mentioned, they assume it refers to the true mind of the Tathāgatagarbha and its true nature. In worldly contexts, people also use the word "true mind" (真心) and "true reality" (真实), but these have no relation to the Tathāgatagarbha. For example, person A asks person B: "Do you truly wish to do this?" "Are you truly willing?" "What is your true thought?" "Is this matter true?" "Is this thing real?" None of these sentences relate to the Tathāgatagarbha. Yet those who study the Tathāgatagarbha Dharma attribute everything to the Tathāgatagarbha. The Tathāgatagarbha has no head; how can anything be "attributed" to it?
Worldly contexts have a "self" (我), and Buddhism also has a "self." The meanings of these two "selves" differ greatly. Yet after studying the Tathāgatagarbha, people become confused and cannot distinguish which "self" is meant. Whenever they encounter the word "self," they assume it refers to the Tathāgatagarbha. Does severing the view of self then mean severing the view of the Tathāgatagarbha? "The five aggregates are self" – does that mean the five aggregates are the Tathāgatagarbha? "The five aggregates are not self" – must that mean the five aggregates are not the Tathāgatagarbha?
9. The Content and Result of Contemplation for Severing the View of Self
The "self" to be severed in "severing the view of self" refers to the innate view of self held by manas and the discriminating view of self held by consciousness; it is not severing the view of self regarding the Tathāgatagarbha. The Tathāgatagarbha has no view of self; there is nothing to sever. One only needs to cause manas and consciousness to contemplate that the dharmas constituting the five aggregates and eighteen elements are suffering, empty, and impermanent, thereby causing manas and consciousness to confirm that the five aggregates and eighteen elements are not self nor belonging to self. It is not about causing the Tathāgatagarbha to confirm that the five aggregates and eighteen elements are not self nor belonging to self. Non-self (anātman) is not denying the existence of the Tathāgatagarbha as self; it is denying the substantial existence of the five aggregates and eighteen elements.
Precisely because the five aggregates and eighteen elements are not substantially real, unchanging dharmas in the conventional world, one causes manas and consciousness to confirm that the five aggregates and eighteen elements are without self, and to cease regarding them as self and belonging to self. The result of contemplation is not to cause manas and consciousness to confirm that the Tathāgatagarbha is without self or that there is a Tathāgatagarbha self, nor is it to cause the Tathāgatagarbha to confirm that it itself is without self. Before contemplation, one can acknowledge the existence of a Tathāgatagarbha self, but the result of contemplation should not fixate on the Tathāgatagarbha, because one is contemplating the five aggregates and eighteen elements, not contemplating the Tathāgatagarbha. The content of contemplation must not be confused; otherwise, the result will be confused, leading to an inability to truly sever the view of self.
10. What is the True Nature of Form, Feeling, Perception, Mental Formations, and Consciousness?
The true nature of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness is impermanent, changing, unstable, empty, suffering, not self, not different from self, not contained within self. Since they are without self, how can one say "I am superior," "I am inferior," "I am no worse than others"? Two dharmas or multiple dharmas that are not self, without self; empty dharmas, multiple dharmas; suffering dharmas, multiple dharmas; unreal dharmas, multiple dharmas – how can they be compared? How can one say which is high, which is low, or that they are equal? How can empty dharmas, unreal dharmas, be compared? How to compare the length of a rabbit's horns? How to compare the beauty of a turtle's fur? How to say "I am stronger than you," "You are weaker than me"? How to say "I am as healthy and wealthy as you"? Worldly people, deluded by ignorance, have long become accustomed to this; they do not know that what they say has no real meaning; it is all laughable talk. Including language and sound, all are illusory and fleeting.
When two people insult each other, who is actually being insulted? Is the insult landing on the aggregate of form? On the aggregate of feeling? On the aggregate of perception? On the aggregate of mental formations? On the aggregate of consciousness? Where does the sound of the insult land? The one being insulted feels uncomfortable – what feels uncomfortable? Which dharma feels uncomfortable? What is called "uncomfortable"? Does a dharma called "comfortable" and "uncomfortable" exist? The insulter feels relieved and satisfied – what feels relieved? Is there a dharma called "relief"?
Contemplating these dharmas in profound samādhi, at a certain point, the mind will empty these dharmas, and body and mind will drop away. This is also a feeling, also unreal, but it is liberating. Without samādhi, even if one understands these dharmas, no matter how many books one writes, it remains empty talk, without substantial benefit.
11. The Meaning of the Falsity of the Five Aggregates
What is falsity (虚妄)? Falsity means false, unreal, also meaning empty, signifying the absence of the thing or principle itself. For example, everyone says that so-and-so became king, but in reality, it did not happen; so-and-so did not become king. This is a false rumor; the matter of so-and-so becoming king is false, illusory, empty, unreal. After sentient beings know this is not a real event, they cease spreading the rumor, no longer take it seriously, their minds are relieved, and the mind becomes empty.
Similarly, sentient beings, since beginningless time, have regarded the five aggregates as real, substantial, as self, as belonging to self. Through contemplation, they finally confirm that the five aggregates are not real, are false, empty, without self, and not belonging to self. Then they cease to regard the five aggregates as themselves; the mind becomes empty, relieved, liberated; they gradually let go, cease clinging, no longer create karmic actions for the sake of this false self, this empty self, and suffering disappears.
However, the false self, the illusory self, exists conventionally; it simply lacks substance; its essence is empty. Those who have attained the purity of the Dharma-eye will still use this illusory five aggregates for cultivation and life, but the thoughts and views within the mind have changed, resulting in afflictions becoming slight or even ceasing, the karmic seeds for the six destinies being eliminated, and the ability to transcend the suffering of birth and death. This is the merit of the śrāvaka's balanced cultivation of concentration and wisdom (śamatha-vipaśyanā), their samādhi.
12. The Manifestation of Self-Nature
In which region of the world do sentient beings have the heaviest view of self and the strongest clinging to self? Sentient beings who emphasize the self have the heaviest view of self and the greatest clinging to self. Buddhism originated in India and later spread to China (震旦, Zhen Dan). Buddhism in Western India (西天, Xitian - India) gradually declined, while Buddhism in China flourished increasingly. Observing from India that China had the atmosphere for Mahāyāna, Bodhidharma risked his life to fly from India to China to transmit the Dharma and ferry the deluded. Mahāyāna Buddhism was widely spread, and Mahāyāna talents emerged continuously. Then the Sixth Patriarch of Chan appeared, and with the 28 Patriarchs of India present, Mahāyāna Buddhism became as stable as Mount Tai.
Why did Buddhism not spread to Western countries but specifically to China? It stems from the differences in cultural foundation and humanistic cultivation. China has the cultural foundation of Confucianism, Daoism, etc., and the doctrine of the mean (中庸之道), revealing the fundamental nature of humanity. Only with humanity can one have the nature of a Bodhisattva and Buddha; without humanity, the nature of a Bodhisattva is even less present. Looking at the current global pneumonia pandemic, despite such a severe infectious disease, people in those countries and regions still demand freedom, human rights, wanting only their own pleasure, completely disregarding the life and safety of others. This is selfish view of self and clinging to self. What does the freedom they want represent? What do the human rights they advocate represent? It is entirely "self," view of self, clinging to self.
Even that so-called freedom, if it does not harm the interests of others, still completely represents self-nature, emphasizing "I." So-called human rights are also about asserting one's own rights, highlighting the self; all are self-nature. To demand independence, autonomy, equality, freedom, rights, status – these demands all originate from a deeply rooted "self," emphasizing the sense of self-existence, pursuing the release of the self, not suppressing that "I." Such deep self-nature cannot attract Mahāyāna Buddhism; the causes and conditions for sentient beings to be saved are not mature.
Similarly, for an individual, if self-nature is very strong, with greed, hatred, jealousy, and strong self-assertion, the causes and conditions for being saved are also not mature. Even if encountering Buddhism, in this life, they will not sever the view of self or attain liberation. Practitioners of Buddhism should always maintain vigilance, constantly observe their own mental conduct and nature. When self-consciousness arises, they should use Buddhist theory to contemplate and guide themselves, to persuade themselves, not letting the self run rampant, eventually becoming a disaster beyond control. One must carefully understand the manifestations of self-nature, its appearance, its characteristics, the environments in which it easily arises, and then seize that "self" at the appropriate time, observe it, reason with it, persuade it, educate it, advise it, subdue it, until finally severing it. Then you are a true hero standing firm, dwelling at the pinnacle of the world, a leader among men. Wouldn't that be joyful!
13. Only by Discovering the Self Can One Sever the View of Self
To sever the view of self, one must first know what the so-called "self" refers to, matching it with all one's own functional attributes. One must be able to identify which "self" is manifesting in every kind of mental and physical activity, which "self" is manifesting in every moment of mental and physical activity, which "self" is manifesting in the mental and physical activity within every dharma. Being able to identify so many "selves" is already extremely difficult; it requires considerable wisdom and power of observation. To always and everywhere catch the thief signifies that one will never be stolen from again, will never lose the family treasure again. This is truly praiseworthy and congratulatory. Regardless of whether the thief is punished, catching it is already half or more than half the success.
14. Why is Excluding Those Who Disagree a Characteristic of Ordinary People's Mundane Nature?
Those who engage in excluding those who disagree are ordinary people fully endowed with afflictions. Because such people have "self" and "others" in their minds, have the four marks (of self, others, beings, life), have affairs and principles; their minds are not empty at all, entirely filled with self-nature. Such people are not easy to cultivate. If they further employ unreasonable means, or stop at nothing, always wanting to trample others underfoot, then such a person has heavy knots of afflictions; they are not ordinary ordinary people and cannot sever the view of self or attain fruition.
Excluding those who disagree belongs to bodily, verbal, and mental actions; it is improper bodily, verbal, and mental conduct. One who has severed the view of self will no longer act this way because, having initially realized non-self, the mind accords with non-self and no longer creates coarse, heavy unwholesome karmic actions. Therefore, to judge whether a person has attained fruition or has the Way, one must still judge from the bodily, verbal, and mental actions of the seven consciousnesses; the more specific, the better. There is no other criterion for judgment. One cannot judge the fruition attainment and cultivation of the seven consciousnesses based on the mental conduct of the eighth consciousness, nor can one judge solely based on speech. Conduct best reflects a person's level of realization and cultivation. Faking speech is easiest; using false words to deceive others is endless. Although sometimes bodily actions can also be faked, it is very limited and cannot be sustained.
Mundane nature is also manifested in desires. Some people study Buddhism, yet their desires grow larger; they want to quickly attain fruition and realize the mind, using any means necessary, wanting any fruition, even false fruition is acceptable, as long as they gain the reputation of having attained fruition and realized the mind. After gaining reputation, they directly become superior beings; all benefits will be obtained; their desires are immense. They don't care about the channel through which they attain fruition; they try every means to attain fruition. This is a very strange way of thinking. Having this thought is precisely the strongest, most solid "self"; how could there still be hope to sever the view of self and attain fruition? Taking Buddhism as a tool to gain worldly fame and profit, blinded by profit, obscured by gain, it is difficult to emerge from darkness and rebirth. In short, the mundane nature of sentient beings is inexhaustible, lamentable. Such lack of awakening makes rebirth perfectly logical; the pitiable have hateful aspects.
15. How to Judge Whether a Person Has Self or is Without Self
To judge whether a person has self or is without self, one cannot simply rely on whether they use the word "I" when speaking to others. Because the Buddha, when speaking to people and teaching the Dharma, also uses the word "I." The word "I" is unavoidable; otherwise, without a subject expressing thoughts, one cannot clearly express one's thoughts and views. The Buddha also says "I" did this or that, yet the Buddha's mind is without self. Some people, though they may not use the word "I," their words are permeated with self; the flavor of self is very strong. One must observe and analyze whether the word "I" in their speech is an objective nominal concept, or whether it contains a very real, substantial self, causing grasping and thought due to the mind having self, being extremely protective, or filled with subjective emotions like pride, arrogance, or inferiority.
Rely on the meaning, not the words (依义不依语). Savor the true meaning, the true intent, of each person's language to judge whether this person has "self" in their heart, and the lightness or heaviness of the flavor of self. To judge whether a person has severed the view of self, do not judge based on the surface meaning of their narrative description. What they point out to you may not be true. Listen carefully to the tone, the flavor of the speech; observe their actions; see if they match what is said or if it's forced. This can be faked, but not for long; there will always be a moment when the truth is revealed.
16. Various Manifestations of View of Self and Clinging to Self
If a person is determined to "be themselves," must be different from others, stand alone, unwilling to be controlled or arranged by anyone or anything, unwilling to comply with anyone or anything, is such a person one who has severed the view of self and is without self, or one with exceptionally strong clinging to self? A person with "self" in their mind will emphasize their own feelings and sensations, care about their own privileges and attributes, care about their own uniqueness, and be unwilling to blend into the masses, unwilling to hide or eliminate the self. Their mind firmly clings to self, unwilling to relinquish it. Those unwilling to comply with anyone's requests, unwilling to be managed or arranged, disobedient to leadership, and unable to discipline themselves have a very heavy view of self. Even if they can discipline themselves, they still have a heavy view of self.
Mahā-Maudgalyāyana, the great Arhat whose clinging to self was completely severed, after attaining fruition, had absolutely no sense of self-existence in his mind. He completely complied with the minds of sentient beings; whatever sentient beings wished him to do, he did; whatever they did not wish, he did not do. Even if sentient beings made unreasonable demands, he obeyed without complaint, never opposing. After severing the view of self, one is a person without self; within the mind, there is no self, nor the marks of person, sentient being, or life span (人相、众生相、寿者相). Is someone who is determined to "be themselves" precisely the opposite of this? Absolutely opposite. Without self, what "self" is there to "be"? This increases the view of self and clinging to self. Therefore, with view of self and clinging to self, the flow of birth and death is endless. Those who are willful will inevitably suffer.
A person who strongly emphasizes the sense of self-existence, unwilling to comply with even the slightest wish of sentient beings, is a strong individualist. A person who never yields, never compromises, has a very strong self-nature. A person who looks down on everyone, considering them inferior, and whose speech is sharp – these are all people with severe clinging to self. People with heavy clinging to self find it difficult to sever the view of self. If a person is always "I am right, you are wrong," sharply distinguishing right and wrong, not knowing how to yield or comply, appearing ungenerous and intolerant, this is a person with a very serious view of self and clinging to self, lacking the Bodhisattva's mind that complies with sentient beings.
If a person lives only caring about their own feelings, focusing on their own feelings, pursuing inner comfort, wild and unrestrained, regardless of the surrounding people and events, regardless of the world, not subject to any constraints, this person has an extremely heavy view of self and clinging to self, so heavy that it is very difficult to sever the view of self in this lifetime.
Everyone should often turn back and reflect on themselves; the mind should always introspect and examine itself. To achieve introspection and self-examination, one must pay more attention to one's inner world. Every thought should be reflected upon and examined. When thoughts not in accordance with the Way are discovered, quickly correct and extinguish them; do not let them run rampant. This is cultivation. A true Bodhisattva neither follows convention nor opposes convention. How to grasp the nuance in between depends on the Bodhisattva's cultivation and skillful wisdom. Ordinary Bodhisattvas lack such skillful means and wisdom in dealing with the world; thus, there are some obstacles in their interaction with the world.
17. The State After the View of Self is Completely Severed
If one regards the Tathāgatagarbha as the true self, the view of self has not been completely severed; this is still a kind of view of self. Because within the Dharma Realm, there is fundamentally no self of the seven consciousnesses. Since there is no self, how can there be a Tathāgatagarbha that is the true self? Without the fundamental self-nature of the seven consciousnesses, there is no self-nature at all. If one establishes the view: "The Tathāgatagarbha is the true self," one simultaneously establishes a self of the seven consciousnesses. Only with a self of the seven consciousnesses would one regard the Tathāgatagarbha as the true self. Without the seven consciousnesses, one would not regard any dharma as self. Therefore, as long as there is seeing of dharmas, it is false seeing (妄见). When there is no false seeing, one necessarily becomes a Buddha. When cultivating to the third barrier (关) of Chan, if the mind still clings to a Tathāgatagarbha self, one cannot pass the third barrier of Chan, cannot attain the Nirvāṇa with residue (有余涅槃), and cannot transcend birth and death.
The ear-faculty perfect penetration method (耳根圆通法门) of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva, cultivated to the end, involves abandoning everything that can be abandoned, emptying everything that can be emptied, even abandoning the abandonment itself, even emptying the emptiness itself. The abandoner and the abandoned, the emptier and the emptied, and even the emptiness of emptiness – all are emptied; there is nothing left to empty. Only the solitary Tathāgatagarbha remains, which cannot be abandoned, is not to be abandoned, cannot be emptied, is not to be emptied, and there is no longer anyone to abandon it or empty it. Then one arrives home, accomplishing the thirty-two response bodies (三十二应身), named the Greatly Compassionate and Greatly Merciful Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva.
18. Clinging to Fruition and Attainment is Also a Manifestation of the View of Self
Looking now at those outside claiming awakening and fruition attainment – they number in the hundreds and thousands; sages almost fill the streets. Yet regarding the mind-nature and afflictions of so many sages, there is fundamentally no difference between before and after their "awakening." They have no change in thought realm or samādhi realm; their bodily, verbal, and mental actions remain as before, even more defiled than before, their arrogance heavier than before. How can one prove whether those people are truly attained and mind-realized? It cannot be proven at all. They have not cultivated the Thirty-seven Aids to Enlightenment (三十七道品); their precepts, concentration, and wisdom are completely lacking. Many are merely at a level of intellectual understanding, a grasp and mastery of knowledge. More still lack even theoretical knowledge or its completeness; they cannot even correspond to the realm of consciousness, let alone manas.
Therefore, in the current market, those committing the grave offense of false speech (大妄语) are far too numerous. Why do they commit false speech? Only those with a heavy view of self, clinging to self as right, commit false speech. Those with a light view of self are very cautious, very careful, very realistic; they will seek verification everywhere – whether their cultivation state is truly realization. They will not blindly elevate themselves, saying "I am this" or "I am that." If a person with a heavy view of self believes they have attained fruition, and you tell them that is not attainment, they will immediately become angry. Why become angry? Because they are very attached to the matter of attaining fruition, very attached to being a sage, very attached to being different from others, very attached to the fruition and identity, and care very much about their fruition status and identity.
This attachment represents that they still have that "self" in their heart, the same as before, or even heavier. If you tell them, "Attainment by consciousness is not true attainment; emotional understanding and logical speculation do not count as attainment; it must be attainment by manas," then, to protect their fruition status and reputation, they will oppose, refute, and attack in various ways, completely without reflection, completely disregarding facts, and certainly without introspection. Because they have a "self" in their heart – that attained "self," that extraordinary "self," that different-from-others "self," that lofty "self" – regarding such a "self" as real, they fiercely protect it. They also regard the fruition as their own real possession and fiercely protect it. This shows that this person's view of self fully exists; they have fundamentally not attained fruition. After truly severing the view of self, wisdom gradually increases, and one gains the ability to discern whether people with various mental conduct have "self" in their hearts, whether they are people who have severed the view of self, to what degree their view of self is, and whether it is severe.
19. What is the Extinction of Both Subject and Object (能所双亡)?
The extinction of both subject and object\: "Subject" refers to the mind of the seven consciousnesses; "object" refers to the dharmas cognized by the mind of the seven consciousnesses; "extinction" means cessation. The mind of the seven consciousnesses no longer regards the seven consciousnesses as a real, sovereign self, nor does it regard the dharmas cognized by the seven consciousnesses as belonging to the seven consciousnesses. Recognizing the falsity and unreality of subject and object is the extinction of both subject and object.
Attaining mind-emptiness does not mean the body is empty or the six sense objects disappear; it means correctly realizing that the body is empty, the five aggregates are empty, the six sense objects are empty; the mind's view has changed, no longer regarding the five-aggregate body as real self, as having self-nature. The body being empty or non-existent is a state of samādhi; the six sense objects disappearing is a state of samādhi. States of samādhi are subject to birth and death and transformation; after samādhi ceases, the body and sense objects reappear.
