Different Views Lead to Different Practices

If an ordinary being's view is the same as the Buddha's view, the ordinary being becomes a Buddha. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of an arhat (the fourth fruit), the ordinary being becomes an arhat. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of a non-returner (the third fruit), the ordinary being becomes a non-returner. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of a once-returner (the second fruit), the ordinary being becomes a once-returner. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of a stream-enterer (the first fruit), the ordinary being becomes a stream-enterer. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of one oriented toward the first fruit, the ordinary being becomes one oriented toward the first fruit, soon to eliminate self-view (ātma-dṛṣṭi).

If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of a bodhisattva who has awakened to the true mind, the ordinary being awakens to the true mind and attains enlightenment. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of a bodhisattva of the first bhūmi, the ordinary being becomes a first-bhūmi bodhisattva. If it is the same as that of a second-bhūmi bodhisattva, the ordinary being becomes a second-bhūmi bodhisattva. If an ordinary being's view is the same as that of a bodhisattva of equal enlightenment, the ordinary being becomes a bodhisattva of equal enlightenment.

One realizes only as far as one's view reaches; if the view is not ultimate, the practice is not ultimate. Between the first fruit and the fourth fruit, wisdom and views are completely different, so the practice is different, the actions and karmic formations are different, and the bodily, verbal, and mental actions are different. Who could claim that the view of a stream-enterer is the same as the view of an arhat? Who could claim that the view of a bodhisattva who has just awakened to the true mind is the same as the view of a bodhisattva of equal enlightenment or of a Buddha? Because views differ, wisdom differs, ignorance differs, speech and conduct differ, bodily, verbal, and mental actions differ, and thus the fruits of realization differ.

Because a stream-enterer's seeing is not yet thoroughly penetrating, he still needs to continue studying the Four Noble Truths and to continue contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) on the selflessness of the five aggregates (pañcaskandha) and the eighteen elements. As wisdom further advances, he becomes a once-returner. Continuing to cultivate and grow in wisdom, his view becomes more penetrating, meditative concentration (samādhi) arises, wisdom advances, and afflictions are eliminated—he becomes a non-returner. Continuing contemplative practice, his view becomes still more penetrating, afflictions are completely eliminated, and he becomes an arhat (the fourth fruit).

The Mahāyāna Dharma is the same: it is all because views differ that wisdom differs, afflictions and ignorance differ, and thus conduct differs.

Thought-delusion arises because incorrect views give rise to afflictive delusions in one's thinking. If one's views were completely correct—correct like the Buddha's—there would be no thought-delusion at all, no afflictive habits, and no ignorance. Therefore, the failure to eliminate thought-delusion is the result of one's seeing not being thoroughly penetrating.

Differences in views lead to differences in thought-delusion. Even within the same fruit of realization, views differ, conduct differs, thought-delusion differs, and the time needed to cultivate to the next fruit also differs. If everyone's views were identical, there would be no arguments or disputes.