答曰。以有人疑後世。不信罪福。作不善 行墮斷滅見。欲斷彼疑捨彼惡行。欲拔彼斷見 。是故說雜生世間雜觸雜受。
[The Individually-adapted (pratipaurusika) Siddhanta]
What is meant by the "individually-adapted siddhanta"? One
contemplates the way a person's mind works and then speaks
Dharma for him [accordingly]. With regard to a given matter,
perhaps he will take heed or perhaps he won't [depending
upon one's skillfulness].
For instance, as stated in a sutra, "On account of
various retributions for actions, one takes up various
rebirths in the world, experiencing various types of contact
and various feelings." [But], in addition to this, we have
what is said in the Phalguna Sutra: "There is no person who
experiences contact. There is no person who experiences
Question: How can these two sutras be reconciled?
Reply: It was on account of there being a person who
doubted future existences, who did not believe in offenses
or blessings, who engaged in unwholesome conduct and who had
fallen into the annihilationist view, that, out of a desire
to cut off his doubts and cause him to foresake his
unwholesome conduct and out of a desire to extricate him
from his annihilationist view, it was therefore said, "One
takes up various rebirths in the world, experiencing various
types of contact and various feelings."
[However], this Phalguna believed in the existence of a
self (atman) and in the existence of a spiritual being (purusa)
and [thus] had fallen into an eternalist belief. Phalguna
asked the Buddha, "Venerable One, who is it that experiences
feelings?" If the Buddha had replied that it was
such-and-such or so-and-so who experiences feelings, then [Phalguna]
would have fallen [even further] into eternalist beliefs and
his views [which clung to the concepts] of a "person" and a
"self" would have become doubly solidified and impossible to
reverse. On account of this [the Buddha] did not say that
there was anyone who experiences feelings or who experiences
contact. [Teachings with] characteristics such as these fall
within the scope of the "individually-adapted siddhanta."
[The Therapeutic (pratipaksika) Siddhanta]
[Dharma as Medicine]
As for the "therapeutic siddhanta," where there is
counteraction in the sphere of existent dharmas, it exists.
As for its actual nature, it does not exist. For example,
intensely hot, greasy, sour, or salty herbs, drinks, or
foods are good medicine in the case of wind diseases but are
non-medicinal in other diseases. Mildly cold, sweet, bitter,
or acrid herbs, drinks, or foods are medicine in the case of
hot diseases but are non-medicinal in other diseases. Mildly
pungent, bitter, acrid, or hot herbs, drinks or foods are
medicine in cold diseases but are non-medicinal in other
diseases. In the Dharma of the Buddha, treatment of diseases
of the mind is undertaken accordingly.
Deliberation based upon the contemplation of impurity is
a good therapeutic dharma with respect to the disease of
desire, but with regard to the disease of hatefulness, it is
not good and it is a nontherapeutic dharma. Why is this?
This is because the contemplation of the faults and deficits
of the body is what is intended by "contemplation of
impurity." If a hateful person contemplates faults and
deficits, then this shall increase the fire of hatefulness.
Deliberation on kindheartedness is a good therapeutic
dharma with respect to the disease of hatefulness, but with
regard to the disease of desire it is not good and it is a
non-therapeutic dharma. Why is this? Because kindheartedness
with regard to beings seeks out choice features and
contemplates meritorious qualities. If a person who is laden
with desire seeks out choice features and contemplates
meritorious qualities, then this increases desire.
The dharma of the contemplation of causes
and conditions is a good therapeutic dharma with respect to
the disease of delusion, but with regard to the diseases of
desire and hatefulness it is not good and it is a
non-therapeutic dharma. Why is this? It is due to prior
falsely-based contemplation that one generates false views.
False views are just [the product of] delusion.
Question: In the Buddhadharma it is said that the
twelve causes and conditions are extremely profound. For
instance, the Buddha told Ananda, "This dharma of causes and
conditions is extremely profound, difficult to perceive,
difficult to understand, difficult to awaken to, and
difficult to contemplate. [Only] a person [equipped with the
faculties] of subtle thought and ingenious sagacity would be
able to understand." Deluded individuals find it difficult
to understand even shallow and proximate dharmas, how much
the more so is this the case with the extremely profound
[dharma of] causes and conditions. In this present discourse
why do you say that deluded individuals should contemplate
the dharma of causes and conditions?
Reply: "Deluded person" is not a reference to
delusion on a par with that of oxen or sheep. Such a person
desires to seek out the actual Way. [But] because of
contemplation undertaken with a mind affected by false
premises, he generates all manner of false views. Deluded
people like these ought to engage in the contemplation of
causes and conditions. This is a good therapeutic dharma.
Because one who acts out of hatefulness or one who
acts out of sensual desire wishes to seek [in the one case]
after pleasure or wishes [in the other case] to torment
others, [causes-and-conditions contemplation] is not good
for these people and it is a non therapeutic dharma. For
these two types of people, deliberation upon impurity [for
the one] and upon kindheartedness [for the other] constitute
good and therapeutic dharmas. Why? Because these two
contemplations are able to pull out the poisonous thorns of
hatefulness and desire.
[Non-ultimacy of "Impermanence" Teachings]
Moreover, those beings who possess the inverted view
of being attached to [the illusion of] permanence are not
aware that dharmas [only] appear to be continuous. For
individuals such as these, the contemplation of impermanence
is the [appropriate] therapeutic siddhanta dharma. It is
not, however, the [siddhanta] of the supreme meaning. Why
[not]? Because all dharmas are devoid of a self-existent
nature. This is as stated in a verse:
To see permanence amidst what is impermanent,-
This is what is known as inverted view.
Since there is no impermanence in emptiness,
Where could one perceive permanence?
~ To be continued