Visuddhimagga (the pah of purification)

by Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu | 1956 | 388,207 words | ISBN-10: 9552400236 | ISBN-13: 9789552400236

This page describes Discerning Formations as Void of the section Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Way of Part 3 Understanding (Paññā) of the English translation of the Visuddhimagga (‘the path of purification’) which represents a detailled Buddhist meditation manual, covering all the essential teachings of Buddha as taught in the Pali Tipitaka. It was compiled Buddhaghosa around the 5th Century.

53. Having thus discerned by knowledge of contemplation of reflection that “All formations are void” (see S III 167), he again discerns voidness in the double logical relation[1] thus: “This is void of self or of what belongs to self” (M II 263; Paṭis II 36).

When he has thus seen that there is neither a self nor any other [thing or being] occupying the position of a self s property, he again discerns voidness in the quadruple logical relation as set forth in this [654] passage: “I am not anywhere anyone’s owning, nor is there anywhere my owning in anyone (nāhaṃ kvacani kassaci kiñcanat’ asmiṃ na ca mama kvacani kismiñci kiñcanat’ atthi)” (M II 263).[2] How?

54. (i) This [meditator, thinking] I … not anywhere (nāhaṃ kvacani), does not see a self anywhere; (ii) [Thinking] am … anyone’s owning (kassaci kiñcanat’ asmiṃ), he does not see a self of his own to be inferred in another’s owning; the meaning is that he does not see [a self of his own] deducible by conceiving a brother [to own it] in the case of a brother,[3] a friend [to own it] in the case of a friend, or a chattel [to own it] in the case of a chattel; (iii) [As regards the phrase] nor … anywhere my (na ca mama kvacani), leaving aside the word my (mama) here for the moment, [the words] nor anywhere (na ca kvacani) [means that] he does not[4] see another’s self anywhere; (iv) Now, bringing in the word my (mama), [we have] is there … my owning in anyone (mama kismiñci kiñcanat’ atthi): he does not see thus, “Another’s self exists owing to some state of my owning[5] [of it]”; the meaning is that he does not see in any instance another’s self deducible owing to this fact of his owning a brother in the case of a brother, a friend in the case of a friend, chattel in the case of a chattel. So (i) he sees no self anywhere [of his own]; (ii) nor does he see it as deducible in the fact of another’s owning; (iii) nor does he see another’s self; (iv) nor does he see that as deducible in the fact of his own owning.[6] This is how he discerns voidness in the quadruple logical relation.

55. Having discerned voidness in the quadruple logical relation in this way, he discerns voidness again in six modes. How? Eye (i) is void of self, (ii) or of the property of a self, (iii) or of permanence, (iv) or of lastingness, (v) or of eternalness, (vi) or of non-subjectness to change; … mind … visible data … mental data … eye-consciousness … mind-consciousness … mind-contact … (Nidd II 187 (Se); Nidd II 279 (Ee); cf. S IV 54) and this should be continued as far as ageing-anddeath (see XX.9).

56. Having discerned voidness in the six modes in this way, he discerns it again in eight modes, that is to say: “Materiality has no core, is coreless, without core, as far as concerns (i) any core of permanence, or (ii) core of lastingness, or (iii) core of pleasure, or (iv) core of self, or as far as concerns (v) what is permanent, or (vi) what is lasting, or (vii) what is eternal, or (viii) what is not subject to change. Feeling … perception … formations … consciousness … eye … (etc., see XX.9) … ageing-and-death has no core, is coreless, without a core, as far as concerns any core of permanence, or core of lastingness, or core of pleasure, or core of self, or as far as concerns what is permanent, or what is lasting, or what is eternal, or what is not subject to change. Just as a reed has no core, is coreless, without core;just as a castor-oil plant, an udumbara (fig) tree, a setavaccha tree, a pāḷibhaddaka tree, a lump of froth, a bubble on water, a mirage, a plantain trunk, [655] a conjuring trick, has no core, is coreless, without core, so too materiality … (etc) … ageing-and-death has no core … or what is subject to change” (Nidd II 184–85 (Se); Nidd II 278–89 (Ee)).

57. Having discerned voidness in eight modes in this way, he discerns it again in ten modes. How? “He sees materiality as empty, as vain, as not-self, as having no Overlord, as incapable of being made into what one wants, as incapable of being had [as one wishes], as insusceptible to the exercise of mastery, as alien, as secluded [from past and future]. He sees feeling … (etc.) … consciousness as empty, … as secluded”[7] (Nidd II 279 (Ee)).

58. Having discerned voidness in ten modes in this way, he discerns it again in twelve modes, that is to say: “Materiality is no living being,[8] no soul, no human being, no man, no female, no male, no self, no property of a self, not I, not mine, not another’s, not anyone’s. Feeling … (etc.) … consciousness … not anyone’s (Nidd II 186 (Se); Nidd II 280 (Ee)).

59. Having discerned voidness in twelve modes in this way, he discerns it again in forty-two modes through full-understanding as investigating. He sees materiality as impermanent, as painful, as a disease, a tumour, a dart, a calamity, an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, a plague, a disaster, a terror, a menace, as fickle, perishable, unenduring, as no protection, no shelter, no refuge, as unfit to be a refuge, as empty, vain, void, not-self, as without satisfaction,[9] as a danger, as subject to change, as having no core, as the root of calamity, as murderous, as due to be annihilated, as subject to cankers, as formed, as Māra’s bait, as subject to birth, subject to ageing, subject to illness, subject to death, subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; as arising, as departing; as danger,[10] as (having an) escape. He sees feeling … (etc.) … consciousness … as (having an) escape (cf. Paṭis II 238).

60. And this is said too:[11] “When he sees materiality as impermanent … as (having an) escape, he looks upon the world as void. When he sees feeling … (etc.) … consciousness as impermanent … as (having an) escape, he looks upon the world as void.” [656]

“Let him look on the world as void:
Thus, Mogharāja, always mindful,
He may escape the clutch of death
By giving up belief in self.
For King Death cannot see the man
That looks in this way on the world”[12]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Dvikoṭika (“double logical relation”) and catukoṭika (“quadruple logical relation”): Skr. catuḥkoṭi (cf. Th. Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, pp. 60–61, note 5).

[2]:

There are a number of variant readings to this sutta passage (which is met with elsewhere as follows: A I 206; II 177; cf. III 170). There are also variant readings of the commentary, reproduced at M-a IV 63–65 and in the commentary to A II 177. The readings adopted are those which a study of the various contexts has indicated. The passage is a difficult one.

The sutta passage seems from its various settings to have been a phrase current among non-Buddhists, as a sort of slogan for naked ascetics (A I 206); and it is used to describe the base consisting of nothingness (M II 263), in which latter sense it is incorporated in the Buddha’s teaching as a description that can be made the basis for right view or wrong view according as it is treated.

The commentarial interpretation given here is summed up by Vism-mhṭ as follows: “‘Nāhaṃ kvacini’: he sees the non-existence of a self of his own. ‘Na kassaci kiñcanat’asmiṃ’: he sees of his own self too that it is not the property of another’s self. ‘Na ca mama’: these words should be construed as indicated. ‘Atthi’ applies to each clause. He sees the nonexistence of another’s self thus, ‘There is no other’s self anywhere.’ He sees of another that that other is not the property of his own self thus, ‘My owning of that other’s self does not exist.’ So this mere conglomeration of formations is seen, by discerning it with the voidness of the quadruple logical relation, as voidness of self or property of a self in both internal and external aggregates’” (Vism-mhṭ 840–41 = ṭīkā to MN 106).

[3]:

Bhātiṭṭhāne—“in the case of a brother”: the form bhāti is not given in PED.

[4]:

Reading “… ṭhapetvā na ca kvacini (:) parassa ca attānaṃ kvaci na passatī ti ayaṃ attho; idāni …” with Ce of M-a and A-a

[5]:

M-a Sinhalese (Aluvihāra) ed. has kiñcanabhāvena here instead of kiñcana-bhāve.

[6]:

Sinhalese eds. of M-a and A-a both read here: “… upanetabbaṃ passati, na parassa attānaṃ passati, na parassa attano kiñcanabhāve upanetabbaṃ passati,” which the sense demands.

[7]:

The cause and the fruit being secluded from each other (see Vism-mhṭ 842).

[8]:

“A meaning such as ‘what in common usage in the world is called a being is not materiality’ is not intended here because it is not implied by what is said;for the common usage of the world does not speak of mere materiality as a being. What is intended as a being is the self that is conjectured by outsiders” (Vism-mhṭ 842).

[9]:

“This is not in the text. If it were there would be forty-three ways” (Vism-mhṭ 842).

[10]:

“Although it has already been described as a danger in order to show it as such, the word is used again in order to show that it is opposed to enjoyment (satisfaction)” (Vism-mhṭ 843).

[11]:

Vism-mhṭ (p. 843) seems to suggest that this is quoted from the Niddesa, but it is not in Nidd II in this form. Cf. Nidd II 162 (Be): Atha vā, vedanaṃ aniccato … dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato … pe … nissaraṇato passanto vedanaṃ nābhinandati …

[12]:

Sn 1119: Nidd II 190 (Se); Nidd II 278 (Ee)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: