The Profound Meaning of the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sutra from the Consciousness-Only Perspective (Second Edition)
Chapter 10 One Mark No-Mark, Eight
Why can a srotāpanna not have the thought "I have attained the fruit of srotāpanna"?
Original text:须菩提。于意云何。须陀洹能作是念。我得须陀洹果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。须陀洹名为入流。而无所入。不入色声香味触法。是名须陀洹。
Explanation: Subhūti, what do you think of this question? Can a srotāpanna of the first fruit have such a thought: "I have realized the fruit of srotāpanna"? Subhūti said: No, such a thought is impossible, World-Honored One. Why? The srotāpanna is called "one who has entered the stream," yet there is nothing entered; one does not enter the form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or mental objects of the mundane world—only such a one truly deserves the name of srotāpanna.
A srotāpanna of the first fruit has just eradicated the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), no longer regarding the dharmas within the five aggregates and eighteen realms as the self or as real. With no view of self and no mark of self, he also does not think there is a self that has eradicated the view of self and become a first-fruit person. There is no person who has eradicated the view of self, no person called srotāpanna, no fruit called srotāpanna. Therefore the fruit of srotāpanna is a provisional designation, not a truly existent dharma, and cannot be grasped as real. If it is grasped as truly existent, there will be the view of self and the view of dharmas, and such a person is not a srotāpanna. If a person has the thought "I am a first-fruit person," the mark of self is plainly evident in him, and he is not a person of the first fruit.
Therefore, as for those who all day long proclaim "I have attained realization, I have seen the mind," broadcasting and showing off everywhere—it can clearly be seen that these people have a heavy view of self and a complete mark of self; they are without doubt ordinary worldlings. If a person constantly clings to the notions "I am a sage," "I am a person of such-and-such fruit," "I am a bodhisattva of the three stages of worthies," "I am a bodhisattva of such-and-such bhūmi," "I have cultivated this and that," "In past lives I was such and such," "I have done such and such for sentient beings," spreading it everywhere, fearing that others do not know, hoping others will revere him, hoping others will prostrate themselves and worship him, hoping his fame will spread far and wide—these behaviors clearly show that this person has a heavy view of self, a complete mark of self, and also a complete mark of a worldling; he is a thoroughgoing worldling.
Since the view of self has already been eradicated, there is no mark of self, no mark of "I have eradicated the view of self." The mind has emptied out the self and also emptied out the fruit. In the ground of actual principle, there is no such thing as eradicating the view of self, no such person as a srotāpanna. Only when the mind of non-action (asaṃskṛta) appears has one realized the dharma of non-action as a srotāpanna. If there is a self and a mark of self, then it is not non-action, and there is no fruit of non-action. Therefore, to judge whether a person has eradicated the view of self, one can also judge from his words and deeds: see whether this person's speech and actual conduct, his way of doing things, show an empty mind, whether he is low-key, whether he dislikes self-promotion. If this person likes to keep "I" on his lips and displays himself everywhere, then the mark of self is complete, the view of self has not been eradicated, and he is not a srotāpanna.
Why can a sakṛdāgāmin of the second fruit not have the thought "I have attained the fruit of sakṛdāgāmin"?
Original text:须菩提。于意云何。斯陀含能作是念。我得斯陀含果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。斯陀含名一往来。而实无往来。是名斯陀含。
Explanation: Subhūti, what do you think of this matter? Can a sakṛdāgāmin have such a thought: "I have realized the fruit of sakṛdāgāmin"? Subhūti replied: A sakṛdāgāmin cannot have such a thought, World-Honored One. Why is this said? The sakṛdāgāmin is called "one who returns once"—once from the heavens to the human world—yet in reality there is no such thing as coming and going; it is merely a name given, called sakṛdāgāmin, that is all.
This passage has the same meaning as the passage above on the first fruit. One who has truly realized the second fruit has an even emptier mind regarding the self of the five aggregates, with no notion of "I have attained the second fruit," much less clinging to "I have attained the second fruit," keeping it in mind constantly and broadcasting it everywhere, fearing others do not know; and if others do not believe it, he becomes angry and refuses to deal with them. Such deep clinging is obviously the emotional attachment of a worldling, having nothing to do with the first or second fruit.
A sakṛdāgāmin of the second fruit has afflictions lighter than those of worldlings and first-fruit persons. After death he is born once in the heavens, returns once to the human world, and then attains the fourth fruit of arhatship, gaining liberation and exiting saṃsāra. He likewise does not regard the five aggregates and eighteen realms as the self; his mind has no concept of self, so he does not think there is a self that has realized the fruit of sakṛdāgāmin, nor that he can realize the fruit of sakṛdāgāmin. The sakṛdāgāmin no longer regards the realms of the desire realm as truly existent dharmas; these all belong to the realms of the six sense objects, all illusory. Therefore when he is reborn in the heavens, there is no place he goes to; when he returns to the human world, there is no place he returns to. There is no sakṛdāgāmin of the five aggregates that can come and go between humans and gods, so in reality there is no coming and going.
One who has realized the second fruit, after death in this life, will be born in a desire-realm heaven to continue cultivation; after death in that heaven, he returns to the human world to continue cultivation; after attaining the fourth fruit of arhatship, upon death he enters nirvāṇa, no longer reborn in the three realms to suffer, liberated from the suffering of birth and death in the three realms—this is the single coming-and-going between heavens and the human world of the second-fruit sakṛdāgāmin. In substance, is there coming and going? There is no coming and going; the matter of coming and going is illusory and unreal. The five aggregates in the heavens and the five aggregates in the human world are all illusory and unreal, all false appearances, not the truth. Therefore the second-fruit sakṛdāgāmin also does not truly exist as a sakṛdāgāmin; the mark of sakṛdāgāmin is also a non-mark, merely provisionally named sakṛdāgāmin. We need not cling to a false name and mark, wasting our minds in vain; we should extinguish the mark of self and the mark of sakṛdāgāmin, remaining unmoved no matter what attainment we achieve, without generating clinging thoughts; otherwise we fall into birth and death and saṃsāra, unable to escape.
Why can an anāgāmin of the third fruit not have the thought of being a third-fruit person?
Original text:须菩提。于意云何。阿那含能作是念。我得阿那含果不。须菩提言。不也。世尊。何以故。阿那含名为不来。而实无不来。是名阿那含。
Explanation: Subhūti, what do you think of this matter? Can an anāgāmin have the thought "I have attained the fruit of anāgāmin"? Subhūti replied: An anāgāmin cannot have such a thought. Why is this said? Because the anāgāmin is called "one who does not return," yet in reality there is no such dharma-mark as "not returning"—that is, there is no such thing as realizing the fruit of anāgāmin; anāgāmin is merely a provisional name.
One who has realized the third fruit has a mind even emptier than that of the second fruit, with even fewer thoughts of "I am such and such"; therefore he will not constantly think "I am an anāgāmin." If it were otherwise, the mind-thoughts would not be empty, and he would not have realized anāgāmin. Because the anāgāmin possesses meditative concentration (dhyāna) at the level of the first dhyāna or above, after death he is born among the five Pure Abodes (śuddhāvāsa) of the form realm to continue cultivating the path; in the five Pure Abodes he attains the fourth fruit of arhatship and directly enters nirvāṇa without remainder, never returning to the human world—therefore it is called the fruit of non-returning, also called the fruit of non-coming. In reality there is no such thing as not returning to the human world; both coming and not coming have no such actuality—they are all illusory false appearances. Giving this false appearance a name, it is called anāgāmin, called the third fruit. Therefore one must not think there is truly a fruit of anāgāmin to be realized, must not think the third-fruit person truly exists, must not generate a grasping mind or an arrogant mind—otherwise one is not a third-fruit person.
Why can an arhat not have the thought "I have realized the fruit of arhatship"?
Original text:须菩提。于意如何。阿罗汉能作是念。我得阿罗汉道不。不也。世尊。何以故。实无有法。名阿罗汉。世尊。若阿罗汉作是念。我得阿罗汉道。即为著我人众生寿者。
Explanation: Subhūti, what do you think of this matter? Can an arhat have the thought "I have attained the fruit of arhatship"? Subhūti replied: An arhat cannot have such a thought, World-Honored One. Why is this said? Because in truth there is no dharma that can be named arhat. World-Honored One, if an arhat thinks in his mind: "I have realized the fruit of arhatship," then he has grasped the mark of self, the mark of person, the mark of sentient being, and the mark of life span—and he is not an arhat.
If anyone has the mind-thought "I am such and such," believing there truly is a self who is such and such, he has grasped the mark of self, and the other three marks appear accordingly. The same is true of the arhat: if he believes he has realized the fruit of arhatship, there is the mark of self in his mind, and then the marks of person, sentient being, and life span also plainly exist; such a person is not an arhat. In the world there truly is no dharma called arhat. The five aggregates composed of the arhat's material body and conscious mind are subject to arising, ceasing, change, and illusion; they are not truly existent dharmas and cannot be called arhat. The fruit of arhatship is merely a state and realm; there is no substantial fruit to be obtained or seen. The matter of realizing the fruit of arhatship is an illusory dharma of arising, ceasing, and change, not a truly existent dharma. If it were a truly existent dharma, it would exist eternally, and without cultivation one would eternally realize the fruit of arhatship.
Therefore the arhat has no thought of "I have realized the fruit of arhatship." After realizing the fruit of arhatship, his mind is empty and tranquil, without even a shadow of the four marks; walking in the human world like an empty shell, he has no disputes or conflicts whatsoever. Worldlings are just the opposite: driven by the view of self, the four marks flourish, and they constantly dwell in afflictions and disputes. The heavier a person's view of self, the heavier his mark of self, the less pure his mind, the heavier his afflictions, and the more disputes and conflicts; conversely, the purer and freer from disputes he is.
Why does Subhūti not have the thought "I am an arhat free from desire"?
Original text:世尊。佛说我得无诤三昧。人中最为第一。是第一离欲阿罗汉。我不作是念。我是离欲阿罗汉。世尊。我若作是念。我得阿罗汉道。世尊则不说须菩提。是乐阿兰那行者。以须菩提实无所行。而名须菩提。是乐阿兰那行者。
Explanation: In order to corroborate that an arhat has no thought of "I am an arhat," Subhūti said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, the Buddha has said that I have attained the samādhi of non-contention (araṇā-samādhi), ranked foremost among humans, the foremost arhat free from desire. Yet I do not give rise to such a thought that I am an arhat free from desire. World-Honored One, if I had such a thought that I have attained the path-fruit of arhatship, then the World-Honored One would not say that Subhūti is one who delights in the practice of araṇā (the pure and tranquil practice). Because Subhūti's mind is empty with nothing done, it is said that Subhūti is one who delights in the practice of tranquility.
Subhūti's other name is also "Born of Emptiness" (Kongsheng), for he can constantly perceive the emptiness and stillness of the world. Because he attained the samādhi of non-contention, he never contends with worldly people: if worldly people say east, it is east; south, it is south; west, it is west; north, it is north—because whatever worldly people say is empty, there is no need to contend over high or low, long or short. Subhūti has no desires or designs toward the world at all; his mind is empty, without marks, without wishes, doing nothing—he is the foremost arhat free from desire among humans. Yet Subhūti has never had the thought "I am an arhat free from desire," much less broadcast himself everywhere. He does not grasp the mark of self, does not grasp the mark "I am an arhat"; otherwise he would be a worldling grasping at marks, and the World-Honored One would not say Subhūti is one who delights in the practice of tranquility. Because Subhūti's mind is constantly empty and still, without desire and without seeking, the World-Honored One praises him as one who delights in the practice of tranquility.
Worldlings, by contrast with Subhūti—regardless of whether there is any such matter—love to boast about themselves everywhere and promote themselves, love to argue over who is superior, love to show off, love being pursued and worshipped by others, love to highlight themselves; in short, they love to market themselves so the world knows them, and thereby their "self" is satisfied—this is the mark of a worldling. Apart from the mark of self, worldlings can do nothing; they constantly live within the mark of self and the four marks—this is their spiritual sustenance for a lifetime, indispensable. Once that "self" is suppressed, it is like a fish out of water. In short, whether a person has the Path or not can be seen in actual conduct; bodily, verbal, and mental actions best illustrate the matter and best reveal a person's level of thought and level of wisdom.
The arhat of the fourth fruit has not only eradicated the view of self but also eradicated attachment to the self; the manas's craving and clinging to the self's five aggregates has been completely severed, the conceit "I am" has been completely severed, and the mind is thoroughly without self. Since there is no self, he will not argue with others over superiority or inferiority, right or wrong, over rights and wrongs, long and short, strong and weak; his mind is tranquil and cool—this is the samādhi of non-contention. And Subhūti is the most non-contentious, the most tranquil, the most compliant with people and affairs.
Being free from desire means leaving behind various desires and all the hopes and cravings belonging to the desire realm, chiefly sexual desire, including wealth, sex, fame, food, and sleep, and the six sense objects of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects. After realizing the first fruit, when the first dhyāna arises and the form-realm state manifests, body and mind experience extreme bliss; because this bliss far surpasses the various pleasures of the desire realm, and also surpasses the pleasure of sexual desire, one then takes no delight in sexual desire, takes no delight in the five sense objects of the desire realm, takes no delight in wealth, sex, fame, food, and sleep—desire is severed. When hatred is further severed, the five lower fetters are completely severed and one becomes a third-fruit person; the arhat of the fourth fruit, all the more, has severed and left behind desire.
Subhūti severed desire most thoroughly; he is the foremost person free from desire. Yet Subhūti has no thought "I am an arhat free from desire." If Subhūti had this thought, then he would have a self, and there would be the matter of "freedom from desire"; his mind would not be tranquil, not pure, and the World-Honored One would not say Subhūti is one who delights in the practice of tranquility. Because there is nothing happening in Subhūti's mind, without desire and without action, and he sees as empty all dharmas within the eighteen realms, regarding all actions as empty, Subhūti accordingly has nothing to practice; in the empty, illusory, false dharmas there is nothing to be done—all that is done is empty, and there is no such actuality. Only thus is Subhūti one who delights in the practice of tranquility, one who acts with nothing done.
