PS 1.2 — Giảng về Kiến

[1] What is a view? Adherence and misapprehension is a view. [2] How many are the grounds for views? There are eight grounds for views. [3] How many are the obsessions with views? There are eighteen obsessions with views. [4] How many are the views? There are sixteen views. [5] How many are the adherences to views? There are three hundred adherences to views. [6] What is the eradication of the grounds for views? The path of stream-entry is the eradication of the grounds for views.

123. How is dogmatic adherence and grasping a view? ‘This form is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. ‘This feeling is mine… this perception is mine… these formations are mine… this consciousness is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. ‘This eye is mine… this ear is mine… this nose is mine… this tongue is mine… this body is mine… this mind is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. ‘These forms are mine… these sounds are mine… these smells are mine… these tastes are mine… these tangibles are mine… these mental phenomena are mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. ‘This eye-consciousness is mine… this ear-consciousness is mine… this nose-consciousness is mine… this tongue-consciousness is mine… this body-consciousness is mine… this mind-consciousness is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. ‘This eye-contact is mine… this ear-contact is mine… this nose-contact is mine… this tongue-contact is mine… this body-contact is mine… this mind-contact is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. ‘This feeling born of eye-contact… this feeling born of ear-contact… this feeling born of nose-contact… this feeling born of tongue-contact… this feeling born of body-contact… this feeling born of mind-contact is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view.

'This perception of form is mine… this perception of sound is mine… this perception of smell is mine… this perception of taste is mine… this perception of tangibles is mine… this perception of mental phenomena is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view. 'This intention regarding form is mine… this intention regarding sound is mine… this intention regarding smell is mine… this intention regarding taste is mine… this intention regarding tangibles is mine… this intention regarding mental phenomena is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view. 'This craving for form is mine… this craving for sound is mine… this craving for smell is mine… this craving for taste is mine… this craving for tangibles is mine… this craving for mental phenomena is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view. 'This thought of form is mine… this thought of sound is mine… this thought of smell is mine… this thought of taste is mine… this thought of tangibles is mine… this thought of mental phenomena is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view. 'This examination of form is mine… this examination of sound is mine… this examination of smell is mine… this examination of taste is mine… this examination of tangibles is mine… this examination of mental phenomena is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view.

'This earth element is mine… this water element is mine… this fire element is mine… this air element is mine… this space element is mine… this consciousness element is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view. 'This earth kasina is mine… this water kasina… this fire kasina… this air kasina… this blue kasina… this yellow kasina… this red kasina… this white kasina… this space kasina… this consciousness kasina is mine, this I am, this is my self'—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is wrong view.

‘This hair is mine… this body hair is mine… this nail is mine… this tooth is mine… this skin is mine… this flesh is mine… this sinew is mine… this bone is mine… this bone marrow is mine… this kidney is mine… this heart is mine… this liver is mine… this membrane is mine… this spleen is mine… this lung is mine… this intestine is mine… this mesentery is mine… this undigested food is mine… this feces is mine… this bile is mine… this phlegm is mine… this pus is mine… this blood is mine… this sweat is mine… this solid fat is mine… this tear is mine… this liquid fat is mine… this saliva is mine… this nasal mucus is mine… this synovial fluid is mine… this urine is mine… this brain is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this adherence and grasping is a view.

‘This eye base is mine… this form base is mine… this ear base is mine… this sound base is mine… this nose base is mine… this odor base is mine… this tongue base is mine… this taste base is mine… this body base is mine… this tangible base is mine… this mind base is mine… this mental phenomena base is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this adherence and grasping is a view.

‘This eye element is mine… this form element is mine… this eye-consciousness element is mine… this ear element is mine… this sound element is mine… this ear-consciousness element is mine… this nose element is mine… this smell element is mine… this nose-consciousness element is mine… this tongue element is mine… this taste element is mine… this tongue-consciousness element is mine… this body element is mine… this tangible element is mine… this body-consciousness element is mine… this mind element is mine… this mental-object element is mine… this mind-consciousness element is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this adherence and grasping is wrong view.

‘This eye faculty is mine… this ear faculty is mine… this nose faculty is mine… this tongue faculty is mine… this body faculty is mine… this mind faculty is mine… this life faculty is mine… this female faculty is mine… this male faculty is mine… this happiness faculty is mine… this pain faculty is mine… this joy faculty is mine… this sorrow faculty is mine… this equanimity faculty is mine… this faith faculty is mine… this energy faculty is mine… this mindfulness faculty is mine… this concentration faculty is mine… this wisdom faculty is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this adherence and grasping is wrong view.

‘This realm of sensual desire is my self… this realm of form is my self… this formless realm is my self… this sensual existence is my self… this form existence is my self… this formless existence is my self… this existence with perception is my self… this existence without perception is my self… this existence with neither perception nor non-perception is my self… this existence with one aggregate is my self… this existence with four aggregates is my self… this existence with five aggregates is my self… this first jhāna is my self… this second jhāna is my self… this third jhāna is my self… this fourth jhāna is my self… this liberation of mind through loving-kindness is my self… this liberation of mind through compassion is my self… this liberation of mind through sympathetic joy is my self… this liberation of mind through equanimity is my self… this attainment of the base of infinite space is my self… this attainment of the base of infinite consciousness is my self… this attainment of the base of nothingness is my self… this attainment of the base of neither perception nor non-perception is mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view.

‘Ignorance is my self… formations are my self… consciousness is my self… name-and-form is my self… the six sense bases are my self… contact is my self… feeling is my self… craving is my self… clinging is my self… existence is my self… birth is my self… aging and death are mine, this I am, this is my self’—this dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view. Thus, dogmatic adherence and grasping is a view.

124. What are the eight bases for views? The aggregates are also a basis for views, ignorance is also a basis for views, contact is also a basis for views, perception is also a basis for views, thought is also a basis for views, unwise attention is also a basis for views, a bad friend is also a basis for views, and the voice of another is also a basis for views.

The aggregates are a cause, the aggregates are a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, the aggregates are also a basis for views. Ignorance is a cause, ignorance is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, ignorance is also a basis for views. Contact is a cause, contact is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, contact is also a basis for views. Perception is a cause, perception is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, perception is also a basis for views. Thought is a cause, thought is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, thought is also a basis for views. Unwise attention is a cause, unwise attention is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, unwise attention is also a basis for views. An evil friend is a cause, an evil friend is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, an evil friend is also a basis for views. The voice of another is a cause, the voice of another is a condition; it is a basis for views in the sense of being a cause of arising through dependence. Thus, the voice of another is also a basis for views. These are the eight bases for views.

125. What are the eighteen manifestations of views? A resort of views, a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a thorn of views, an agitation of views, a fetter of views, a dart of views, a constriction of views, an obstruction of views, a bondage of views, a precipice of views, an underlying tendency to views, a torment of views, a burning of views, a knot of views, a clinging to views, an adherence to views, and a misapprehension of views. These are the eighteen manifestations of views.

126. What are the sixteen views? The view of gratification, the view that follows after a self, wrong view, identity view, the eternalist view with identity as its basis, the annihilationist view with identity as its basis, the view that grasps at an extreme, the view that follows after the prior end, the view that follows after the latter end, the view that is a fetter, the view bound by the conceit ‘I am,’ the view bound by the conceit ‘this is mine,’ the view connected with the doctrine of self, the view connected with the doctrine of the world, the view of becoming, and the view of non-becoming—these are the sixteen views.

127. What are the three hundred adherences to views? In how many ways does adherence to the view of gratification occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view that follows after a self occur? In how many ways does adherence to wrong view occur? In how many ways does adherence to identity view occur? In how many ways does adherence to the eternalist view with identity as its basis occur? In how many ways does adherence to the annihilationist view with identity as its basis occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view that grasps at an extreme occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view that follows after the prior end occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view that follows after the latter end occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view that is a fetter occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view bound by the conceit ‘I am’ occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view bound by the conceit ‘this is mine’ occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view connected with the doctrine of self occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view connected with the doctrine of the world occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view of becoming occur? In how many ways does adherence to the view of non-becoming occur?

There is adherence in thirty-five ways with regard to the view of gratification. There is adherence in twenty ways with regard to the view of self. There is adherence in ten ways with regard to wrong view. There is adherence in twenty ways with regard to identity view. There is adherence in fifteen ways with regard to the eternalist view based on identity. There is adherence in five ways with regard to the annihilationist view based on identity. There is adherence in fifty ways with regard to the view grasping at extremes. There is adherence in eighteen ways with regard to the view concerning the past. There is adherence in forty-four ways with regard to the view concerning the future. There is adherence in eighteen ways with regard to the view that is a fetter. There is adherence in eighteen ways with regard to the view bound by the conceit 'I am'. There is adherence in eighteen ways with regard to the view bound by the conceit 'mine'. There is adherence in twenty ways with regard to the view connected with the doctrine of self. There is adherence in eight ways with regard to the view connected with the doctrine of the world. There is adherence in one way with regard to the view of becoming. There is adherence in one way with regard to the view of non-becoming.

1. Exposition of the View of Gratification

128. What are the thirty-five ways in which there is adherence with regard to the view of gratification? The adherent grasping of the idea that 'whatever pleasure and joy arises dependent on form is the gratification of form' is 'view'. View is not gratification; gratification is not view. View is one thing, gratification is another. Both that which is the view and that which is the gratification—this is called the view of gratification.

The view of gratification is wrong view, a corruption of view. A person endowed with this corruption of view is one whose view is corrupted. A person whose view is corrupted should not be associated with, followed, or attended upon. For what reason? Because his view is evil. The lust that is in relation to view is not the view. View is not lust. View is one thing, lust is another. Both the view and the lust—this is called lust-for-view. A person endowed with that view and that lust is one who delights in lust-for-view. A gift given to a person who delights in lust-for-view is not of great fruit, nor of great benefit. For what reason? Because his view is evil—the view of gratification, the wrong view.

For a person with wrong view, there are only two destinations: hell or the animal realm. For a person with wrong view, whatever bodily action is undertaken and completed in accordance with that view, whatever verbal action... whatever mental action is undertaken and completed in accordance with that view, whatever volition, aspiration, resolution, and formations there are—all those things lead to what is undesirable, unloved, disagreeable, unbeneficial, and for suffering. For what reason? Because his view is evil. Just as a neem seed, a bitter sponge gourd seed, or a bitter bottle gourd seed, planted in moist earth, whatever earth-essence it takes up, and whatever water-essence it takes up, all that leads to bitterness, pungency, and unpleasantness. For what reason? Because its seed is bad. In the same way, for a person with wrong view, whatever bodily action is undertaken and completed in accordance with that view, whatever verbal action... whatever mental action is undertaken and completed in accordance with that view, whatever volition, aspiration, resolution, and formations there are—all those things lead to what is undesirable, unloved, disagreeable, unbeneficial, and for suffering. For what reason? Because his view is evil—the view of gratification, wrong view.

Wrong view is a holding of a view, a jungle of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, an agitation of views, a fetter of views, a dart of views, a constriction of views, an obstruction of views, a bondage of views, a precipice of views, a latent tendency of views, a torment of views, a fever of views, a knot of views, a clinging to views, an adherence to views, a misapprehension of views—this is the bondage for a mind assailed by these eighteen aspects.

129. There are states that are both fetters and views, and there are states that are fetters but not views. Which are both fetters and views? Self-identity view and clinging to rules and observances—these are both fetters and views. Which are fetters but not views? The fetter of sensual desire, the fetter of aversion, the fetter of conceit, the fetter of doubt, the fetter of craving for existence, the fetter of envy, the fetter of stinginess, the fetter of attachment, the fetter of ignorance—these are fetters but not views.

Dependent on feeling... dependent on perception... dependent on formations... dependent on consciousness... dependent on the eye... dependent on the ear... dependent on the nose... dependent on the tongue... dependent on the body... dependent on the mind... dependent on forms... dependent on sounds... dependent on smells... dependent on tastes... dependent on tactile objects... dependent on mental phenomena... dependent on eye-consciousness... dependent on ear-consciousness... dependent on nose-consciousness... dependent on tongue-consciousness... dependent on body-consciousness... dependent on mind-consciousness... dependent on eye-contact... dependent on ear-contact... dependent on nose-contact... dependent on tongue-contact... dependent on body-contact... dependent on mind-contact... dependent on feeling born of eye-contact... dependent on feeling born of ear-contact... dependent on feeling born of nose-contact... dependent on feeling born of tongue-contact... dependent on feeling born of body-contact... dependent on feeling born of mind-contact, the pleasure and mental joy that arise—the misapprehension through adherence that 'this is the gratification in feeling born of mind-contact' is a view. View is not gratification; gratification is not view. View is one thing, gratification another. That which is view and that which is gratification—this is called the view of gratification.

The view of gratification is wrong view, a corruption of view. A person endowed with this corruption of view is one whose view is corrupted. A person whose view is corrupted should not be associated with, followed, or attended upon. For what reason? Because their view is evil. The lust that is associated with view is not the view. View is not lust. View is one thing, lust is another. That which is view and that which is lust—this is called lust for views. A person endowed with that view and that lust is attached to lust for views. A gift given to a person attached to lust for views is not of great fruit, nor of great benefit. For what reason? Because their view is evil—the view of gratification, wrong view.

For a person with wrong view, there are only two destinations: either hell or the animal realm. For a person with wrong view, whatever bodily action is undertaken and completed in accordance with their view, whatever verbal action... whatever mental action is undertaken and completed in accordance with their view, whatever volition, whatever aspiration, whatever resolution, and whatever formations there are—all these phenomena conduce to what is undesirable, unloved, disagreeable, unbeneficial, and to suffering. For what reason? Because their view is evil. Just as a neem seed, or a bitter sponge gourd seed, or a bitter bottle gourd seed, sown in moist earth, absorbs whatever earth-essence and whatever water-essence it takes up, all of it conduces to bitterness, pungency, and unpleasantness. For what reason? Because its seed is bad. In the same way, for a person with wrong view, whatever bodily action is undertaken and completed in accordance with their view, whatever verbal action... whatever mental action is undertaken and completed in accordance with their view, whatever volition, whatever aspiration, whatever resolution, and whatever formations there are—all these phenomena conduce to what is undesirable, unloved, disagreeable, unbeneficial, and to suffering. For what reason? Because their view is evil—the view of gratification, wrong view.

Wrong view is what is held as a view, a thicket of views... adherence to views, and grasping of views. This is the bondage for one whose mind is assailed by these eighteen aspects.

There are both fetters and views, and there are fetters but not views. Which are both fetters and views? Identity-view and adherence to rites and rituals—these are both fetters and views. Which are fetters but not views? The fetter of sensual desire, the fetter of aversion, the fetter of conceit, the fetter of doubt, the fetter of craving for existence, the fetter of envy, the fetter of stinginess, the fetter of favour, the fetter of ignorance—these are fetters but not views. Adherence to the view of gratification occurs through these thirty-five modes.

The First Exposition of the View of Gratification.

2. The Exposition of the View that Follows a Self

130. By which twenty modes does adherence to the view that follows a self occur? Here, an uninstructed ordinary person—not seeing the noble ones, unversed in the Dhamma of the noble ones, undisciplined in the Dhamma of the noble ones; not seeing true persons, unversed in the Dhamma of true persons, undisciplined in the Dhamma of true persons—regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He regards perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He regards formations as self, or self as possessing formations, or formations as in self, or self as in formations. He regards consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

131. How does one repeatedly regard form as self? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards the earth kasiṇa as self, thinking: “That which is the earth kasiṇa, that I am; that which I am, that is the earth kasiṇa.” They repeatedly regard the earth kasiṇa and self as non-dual. Just as when an oil lamp is burning, one repeatedly regards the flame and the color as non-dual, thinking: “The flame is the color; the color is the flame.” In the same way, here, a certain person repeatedly regards the earth kasiṇa as self, thinking: “That which is the earth kasiṇa, that I am; that which I am, that is the earth kasiṇa.” They repeatedly regard the earth kasiṇa and self as non-dual. Clinging through adherence is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. This view and this basis constitute the first self-view based on form. Self-view is wrong view, a corruption of view... and so on... self-view is wrong view. For an individual holding wrong view, there are only two destinations... and so on... these are fetters, and not views.

Here, a certain person repeatedly regards the water kasiṇa... the fire kasiṇa... the air kasiṇa... the blue kasiṇa... the yellow kasiṇa... the red kasiṇa... the white kasiṇa as self, thinking: “That which is the white kasiṇa, that I am; that which I am, that is the white kasiṇa.” They repeatedly regard the white kasiṇa and self as non-dual. Just as when an oil lamp is burning, one repeatedly regards the flame and the color as non-dual, thinking: “The flame is the color; the color is the flame.” In the same way, here, a certain person... and so on... repeatedly regards the white kasiṇa and self as non-dual. Clinging through adherence is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. This view and this basis constitute the first self-view based on form. Self-view is wrong view, a corruption of view... and so on... these are fetters, and not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards form as self.

How does one regard the self as possessing form? Here, a certain person regards feeling... perception... formations... consciousness as self. They think: 'This is my self. And this self of mine possesses form by means of this form.' They regard the self as possessing form. Just as a tree might be endowed with shade, and a person might say of it: 'This is the tree, this is the shade. The tree is one thing, the shade is another. But this tree possesses shade by means of this shade.' They regard the tree as possessing shade. In the same way, here, a certain person regards feeling... perception... formations... consciousness as self. They think: 'This is my self. And this self of mine possesses form by means of this form.' They regard the self as possessing form. Grasping through adherence is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. This view and this basis constitute the second self-view that has form as its basis. The self-view is wrong view, a distortion of view... These are the fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards the self as possessing form.

How does one regard form in self? Here, a certain person regards feeling... perception... formations... consciousness as self. They think thus: ‘This is my self. And this form is in my self.’ Thus, they regard form in self. Just as there might be a fragrant flower, and a person would say: ‘This is the flower, this is the fragrance; the flower is one thing, the fragrance is another. Yet this fragrance is in this flower.’ Thus, they regard the fragrance in the flower. In the same way, here, a certain person regards feeling... perception... formations... consciousness as self. They think thus: ‘This is my self. And this form is in my self.’ Thus, they regard form in self. Grasping through adherence is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the third self-view that has form as its basis. The self-view is wrong view, a corruption of view... these are fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards form in self.

How does one regard self in form? Here, a certain person regards feeling… perception… formations… consciousness as self. They think thus: ‘This, indeed, is my self. Furthermore, that self of mine is established in this form.’ Thus, they regard self in form. Just as a jewel might be placed in a casket, and a man would say: ‘This is the jewel, this is the casket. The jewel is one thing, the casket is another. Furthermore, this jewel is established in this casket.’ Thus, one regards the jewel in the casket. In the very same way, here, a certain person regards feeling… perception… formations… consciousness as self. They think thus: ‘This, indeed, is my self. Furthermore, that self of mine is established in this form.’ Thus, they regard self in form. Adherence and grasping is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the fourth view of self that has form as its basis. The view of self is wrong view, a corruption of view…pe… These are called fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards self in form.

132. How does one regard feeling as self? Here, a certain person regards feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, and feeling born of mind-contact as self. “The feeling born of mind-contact is I; I am the feeling born of mind-contact”—they regard the feeling born of mind-contact and the self as non-dual. Just as when an oil lamp is burning, one might say, “The flame is the color; the color is the flame”—regarding the flame and the color as non-dual. In the same way, here, a certain person regards feeling born of mind-contact as self. “The feeling born of mind-contact is I; I am the feeling born of mind-contact”—they regard the feeling born of mind-contact and the self as non-dual. Clinging through adherence is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. This view and this basis constitute the first self-view based on feeling. Self-view is wrong view, a distortion of view... these are the fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards feeling as self.

How does one regard the self as possessing feeling? Here, someone regards perception… volitional formations… consciousness… form as self. They think: “This is my self. And this self of mine is one who feels by means of this feeling.” They regard the self as possessing feeling. Just as a tree might be endowed with shade, and a person might say, “This is the tree, this is the shade. The tree is one thing, the shade another. But this tree is endowed with this shade”—they regard the tree as endowed with shade. In the same way, someone regards perception… volitional formations… consciousness… form as self. They think: “This is my self. And this self of mine is one who feels by means of this feeling.” They regard the self as possessing feeling. Adherence and grasping is a view. A view is not the basis, the basis is not a view. A view is one thing, the basis another. The view and the basis—this is the second self-view that has feeling as its basis. Self-view is wrong view, a corruption of view… these are fetters, but not views. Thus one regards the self as possessing feeling.

How does one repeatedly contemplate feeling in the self? Here, a certain person repeatedly contemplates perception… volitional formations… consciousness… form as self. To them, it occurs thus: “This is my self, and in this self this feeling is established.” They repeatedly contemplate feeling in the self. It is like a flower that is endowed with fragrance. A person might say of it: “This is the flower, this is the fragrance; the flower is one thing, the fragrance another. This fragrance is established in this flower.” They repeatedly contemplate the fragrance in the flower. In the same way, a certain person repeatedly contemplates perception… volitional formations… consciousness… form as self. To them, it occurs thus: “This is my self, and in this self this feeling is established.” They repeatedly contemplate feeling in the self. Grasping through adherence is a view. A view is not the basis; the basis is not a view. A view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the third self-view that has feeling as its basis. A self-view is a wrong view, a corruption of view… these are fetters, but not views. Thus one repeatedly contemplates feeling in the self.

How does one repeatedly regard the self in feeling? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards perception… volitional formations… consciousness… form as self. They think: “This very thing is my self. And this self of mine is established in this feeling.” Thus one repeatedly regards the self in feeling. Just as a gem might be placed in a casket, and a person might say, “This is the gem, this is the casket. The gem is one thing, the casket another. And this gem is established in this casket.” Thus one repeatedly regards the gem in the casket. In the same way, a certain person repeatedly regards perception… volitional formations… consciousness… form as self. They think: “This very thing is my self. And this self of mine is established in this feeling.” Thus one repeatedly regards the self in feeling. Grasping through misapprehension is the view. A view is not the basis, the basis is not the view. A view is one thing, the basis another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the fourth self-view that has feeling as its basis. The self-view is wrong view, a corruption of view… these are fetters, and not views. Thus one repeatedly regards the self in feeling.

133. How does one repeatedly regard perception as self? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards perception born of eye-contact… perception born of mind-contact as self. ‘That which is perception born of mind-contact is I; that which is I is the perception born of mind-contact.’ Thus, they repeatedly regard perception born of mind-contact and the self as non-dual. Just as, while an oil lamp is burning, one repeatedly regards the flame and the color as non-dual, thinking: ‘That which is the flame is the color; that which is the color is the flame.’ In this very way, here a certain person repeatedly regards perception born of mind-contact as self, thinking: ‘That which is perception born of mind-contact is I; that which is I is the perception born of mind-contact.’ Thus, they repeatedly regard perception born of mind-contact and the self as non-dual. Adherence and misapprehension are a view. A view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the first self-view that has perception as its basis. A self-view is a wrong view, a corruption of view… these are fetters, but they are not views. In this way, one repeatedly regards perception as self.

How does one regard the self as possessing perception? Here, someone regards formations… consciousness… form… feeling as self. They think: “This is my self. And this self of mine possesses perception by means of this perception.” They regard the self as possessing perception. Just as a tree might be endowed with shade, and a person might say, “This is the tree, this is the shade. The tree is one thing, the shade another. And this tree is endowed with this shade”—they regard the tree as endowed with shade. In the same way, someone regards formations… consciousness… form… feeling as self. They think: “This is my self. And this self of mine possesses perception by means of this perception.” They regard the self as possessing perception. Misapprehension through adherence is a view. A view is not the basis, the basis is not the view. A view is one thing, the basis another. The view and the basis—this is the second perception-based self-view. Self-view is wrong view… these are fetters, but not views. Thus one regards the self as possessing perception.

How does one repeatedly observe perception in the self? Here, a certain person repeatedly observes formations… consciousness… form… feeling as self. To them, it occurs thus: 'This is indeed my self. And in this self, this perception is established.' Thus, they repeatedly observe perception in the self. Just as a flower might be endowed with fragrance, and a person might say: 'This is the flower, this is the fragrance. The flower is one thing, the fragrance another. Yet this fragrance is established in this flower.' Thus, they repeatedly observe the fragrance in the flower. In the same way, a certain person repeatedly observes formations… consciousness… form… feeling as self. To them, it occurs thus: 'This is indeed my self. And in this self, this perception is established.' Thus, they repeatedly observe perception in the self. Adherence and grasping is a view. A view is not the basis; the basis is not a view. A view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the third, the self-view that has perception as its ground. The self-view is a wrong view… These are fetters, but they are not views. Thus, one repeatedly observes perception in the self.

How does one regard the self in perception? Here, someone regards formations... consciousness... form... feeling as self. It occurs to him: 'This is my self. And this self of mine is established in this perception.' Thus, one regards the self in perception. Just as a gem might be placed in a casket, and a person would say: 'This is the gem, this is the casket. The gem is one thing, the casket another. Yet this gem is situated in this casket.' Thus, one regards the gem in the casket. In the same way, here someone regards formations... consciousness... form... feeling as self. It occurs to him: 'This is my self. And this self of mine is established in this perception.' Thus, one regards the self in perception. Adherence and grasping is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis another. Both the view and the basis—this is the fourth identity view with perception as its basis. Identity view is wrong view... These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards the self in perception.

134. How does one repeatedly regard formations as self? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards volition born of eye-contact, volition born of ear-contact, volition born of nose-contact, volition born of tongue-contact, volition born of body-contact, and volition born of mind-contact as self. ‘Whatever is the volition born of mind-contact, that I am; whatever I am, that is the volition born of mind-contact’—thus one repeatedly regards volition born of mind-contact and the self as non-dual. Just as, in the case of a burning oil lamp, one repeatedly regards the flame and the color as non-dual, thinking: ‘Whatever is the flame, that is the color; whatever is the color, that is the flame.’ In the same way, here a certain person repeatedly regards volition born of mind-contact as self. ‘Whatever is the volition born of mind-contact, that I am; whatever I am, that is the volition born of mind-contact’—thus one repeatedly regards volition born of mind-contact and the self as non-dual. Adherence and misapprehension is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the first identity-view that has formations as its basis. The identity-view is a wrong view… These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards formations as self.

How does one repeatedly regard the self as possessing formations? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards consciousness... form... feeling... perception as self. It occurs to him: 'Indeed, this is my self. And this self of mine possesses formations by means of these formations.' Thus, one repeatedly regards the self as possessing formations. Just as a tree might be endowed with shade, and a person might say of it: 'This is the tree, and this is the shade. The tree is one thing, the shade another. And this tree possesses shade by means of this shade.' Thus one regards the tree as possessing shade. In the same way, here a certain person repeatedly regards consciousness... form... feeling... perception as self. It occurs to him: 'Indeed, this is my self. And this self of mine possesses formations by means of these formations.' Thus, one repeatedly regards the self as possessing formations. Adherence and misapprehension is the view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the second view in conformity with self, which has formations as its basis. A view in conformity with self is a wrong view... These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards the self as possessing formations.

How does one repeatedly regard formations in the self? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards consciousness... form... feeling... perception as self. It occurs to him: 'This, indeed, is my self. And in this self, these formations are established.' Thus, one repeatedly regards formations in the self. Just as there might be a flower endowed with fragrance, and a man would say of it: 'This is the flower, this is the fragrance; the flower is one thing, the fragrance another. Yet this fragrance is established in this flower.' Thus, one repeatedly regards the fragrance in the flower. In the very same way, here a certain person repeatedly regards consciousness... form... feeling... perception as self. It occurs to him: 'This, indeed, is my self. And in this self, these formations are established.' Thus, one repeatedly regards formations in the self. Adherence and misapprehension is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the third self-view that has formations as its basis. The self-view is a wrong view... These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards formations in the self.

How does one repeatedly perceive the self in formations? Here, a certain person repeatedly perceives consciousness... form... feeling... perception as self. It occurs to him: 'This indeed is my self. And this self of mine is established in these formations.' Thus, one repeatedly perceives the self in formations. Just as a gem might be placed in a casket, and a person would say: 'This is the gem, this is the casket. The gem is one thing, the casket another. And this gem is established in this casket.' Thus, one repeatedly perceives the gem in the casket. In the same way, here a certain person repeatedly perceives consciousness... form... feeling... perception as self. It occurs to him: 'This indeed is my self. And this self of mine is established in these formations.' Thus, one repeatedly perceives the self in formations. Adherence and misapprehension is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis another. Both the view and the basis—this is the fourth identity-view that has formations as its basis. Identity-view is wrong view... These are fetters, not views. Thus, one repeatedly perceives the self in formations.

135. How does one repeatedly regard consciousness as self? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards eye-consciousness... ear-consciousness... nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness... mind-consciousness as self. ‘That which is mind-consciousness, that I am; that which I am, that is mind-consciousness’—thus one repeatedly regards mind-consciousness and self as non-dual. Just as, in the case of a burning oil lamp, one might repeatedly regard the flame and the color as non-dual: ‘That which is the flame, that is the color; that which is the color, that is the flame.’ In the same way, here a certain person repeatedly regards mind-consciousness as self. ‘That which is mind-consciousness, that I am; that which I am, that is mind-consciousness’—thus one repeatedly regards mind-consciousness and self as non-dual. Adherence and misapprehension is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. Both the view and its basis—this is the first identity-view that has consciousness as its basis. Identity-view is wrong view... These are fetters, not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards consciousness as self.

How does one regard the self as possessing consciousness? Here, a certain person regards form… feeling… perception… volitional formations as self. To them, it occurs thus: ‘This is my self, and this self of mine possesses consciousness by means of this consciousness.’ Thus, they regard the self as possessing consciousness. Suppose a tree were endowed with shade. A person might say of it: ‘This is the tree, this is the shade. The tree is one thing, the shade is another, but this very tree possesses shade by means of this shade.’ Thus, they regard the tree as possessing shade. In the very same way, here, a certain person regards form… feeling… perception… volitional formations as self. To them, it occurs thus: ‘This is my self, and this self of mine possesses consciousness by means of this consciousness.’ Thus, they regard the self as possessing consciousness. Adherence and misapprehension is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the second self-view that has consciousness as its basis. Self-view is wrong view… these are fetters, but they are not views. Thus does one regard the self as possessing consciousness.

How does one regard consciousness as being in self? Here, a certain person regards form… feeling… perception… volitional formations as self. To them, it occurs thus: ‘This is my self. And in this self, this consciousness is established.’ Thus, they regard consciousness as being in self. Just as there might be a flower endowed with fragrance, and a person would speak thus of it: ‘This is the flower, this is the fragrance; the flower is one thing, the fragrance is another. Yet this fragrance is established in this flower.’ Thus, they regard the fragrance as being in the flower. In the very same way, a certain person here regards form… feeling… perception… volitional formations as self. To them, it occurs thus: ‘This is my self. And in this self, this consciousness is established.’ Thus, they regard consciousness as being in self. Wrongful adherence and consideration is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the third self-view that has consciousness as its basis. The self-view is a wrong view… These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards consciousness as being in self.

How does one regard self in consciousness? Here, a certain person regards form… feeling… perception… volitional formations as self. To them, the thought occurs: ‘This is my self, and that self of mine is established in this consciousness.’ Thus, they regard self in consciousness. Just as a gem might be placed in a casket, and a person would say: ‘This is the gem, this is the casket. The gem is one thing, the casket another. Yet this gem is established in this casket.’ Thus, they regard the gem in the casket. In the same way, a certain person here regards form… feeling… perception… volitional formations as self. To them, the thought occurs: ‘This is my self, and that self of mine is established in this consciousness.’ Thus, they regard self in consciousness. Adherence and grasping is a view. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the fourth self-view that has consciousness as its basis. A self-view is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards self in consciousness. There is adherence in these twenty ways with respect to the self-view.

Here ends the Second Exposition of the Self-View.

3. The Exposition of Wrong View

136. In what ten ways does adherence to wrong view occur? 'There is no [result of] what is given'—this is the basis. Such a tenet is wrong adherence and grasping; this is the 'view'. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. Both the view and the basis—this is the first wrong view that has a wrong basis. Wrong view is a corruption of view… these are fetters, but not views. 'There is no [result of] sacrifice'—this is the basis… 'There is no [result of] what is offered'—this is the basis… 'There is no fruit or result of good and bad deeds'—this is the basis… 'There is no this world'—this is the basis… 'There is no other world'—this is the basis… 'There is no mother'—this is the basis… 'There is no father'—this is the basis… 'There are no spontaneously arisen beings'—this is the basis… 'There are no ascetics or brahmins in the world who are rightly directed, rightly practicing, and who, having realized this world and the other world for themselves through direct knowledge, declare it'—this is the basis. Such a tenet is wrong adherence and grasping; this is the 'view'. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. Both the view and the basis—this is the tenth wrong view that has a wrong basis. Wrong view is a corruption of view… for a person holding wrong view, there are only two destinations… these are fetters, but not views. In these ten ways does adherence to wrong view occur.

The Third Exposition of Wrong View.

4. The Exposition of Identity View

137. In what twenty ways does adherence to identity view occur? Here, an uninstructed ordinary person—who has not seen the noble ones, is unskilled in the noble Dhamma, and untrained in the noble Dhamma; who has not seen the good persons, is unskilled in the Dhamma of the good, and untrained in the Dhamma of the good—regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. They regard feeling… perception… formations… and consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

How does one regard form as self? Here, someone regards the earth kasiṇa [...] the white kasiṇa as self. “The white kasiṇa is I; I am the white kasiṇa”—they regard the white kasiṇa and the self as not two. Just as with the flame of an oil lamp burning [...], so too, here someone regards the white kasiṇa as self. This adherence and grasping is a view [...]. This is the first identity view based on form. Identity view is wrong view [...]. These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one regards form as self [...]. Adherence to identity view occurs in these twenty ways.

The Exposition of Identity View is the fourth.

5. The Exposition of the Eternalism View

138. In what fifteen ways does adherence to the eternalist view based on identity occur? Here, an uninstructed ordinary person—who has not seen the noble ones, is unskilled in the noble Dhamma, and untrained in the noble Dhamma; who has not seen the good persons, is unskilled in the Dhamma of the good, and untrained in the Dhamma of the good—regards self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. They regard self as possessing feeling… and so on… self as possessing perception… self as possessing formations… self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

How does one repeatedly regard a self as possessing form? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards feeling... perception... volitional formations... consciousness as self. To them, it occurs thus: ‘This indeed is my self. And this self of mine possesses form by means of this form.’ Thus, they repeatedly regard a self as possessing form. Just as a tree might be endowed with shade, and a person might say of it thus: ‘This is the tree, this is the shade; the tree is one thing, the shade is another. And this tree possesses shade by means of this shade.’ Thus, they repeatedly regard the tree as possessing shade. In the very same way, here a certain person regards feeling... and so on... This is the first eternalist view that has identity as its basis. The eternalist view is a wrong view... and so on... These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards a self as possessing form... and so on... Adherence to the eternalist view that has identity as its basis occurs in these fifteen ways.

The Exposition of Eternalism is the fifth.

6. The Exposition of the Annihilationist View

139. In which five ways does adherence to the annihilationist view that has identity as its basis occur? Here, an uninstructed ordinary person—who is not one to see the noble ones, is unskilled in the Dhamma of the noble ones, is untrained in the Dhamma of the noble ones; who is not one to see the good persons, is unskilled in the Dhamma of the good persons, is untrained in the Dhamma of the good persons—repeatedly regards form as self, repeatedly regards feeling as self, repeatedly regards perception as self, repeatedly regards volitional formations as self, and repeatedly regards consciousness as self.

How does one repeatedly regard form as self? Here, a certain person repeatedly regards the earth kasiṇa… and so on… the white kasiṇa as self. ‘That which is the white kasiṇa, that I am; that which I am, that is the white kasiṇa’—thus one repeatedly regards the white kasiṇa and the self as non-dual. Just as in the case of a burning oil lamp… and so on… This is the first annihilationist view based on identity. The annihilationist view is a wrong view… and so on… These are fetters, and not views. Thus, one repeatedly regards form as self… and so on… Adherence to the annihilationist view based on identity occurs in these five ways.

The Exposition of the Annihilationist View is the sixth.

7. The Exposition of Views Grasping at Extremes

140. In which fifty ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The world is eternal’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The world is not eternal’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The world is finite’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The world is infinite’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The life-principle is the same as the body’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The life-principle is one thing, the body another’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur? ‘The Tathāgata exists after death’… and so on… ‘The Tathāgata does not exist after death’… ‘The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death’… ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’—in how many ways does adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occur?

‘The world is eternal’—adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occurs in five ways… and so on… ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’—adherence to the view grasping at an extreme occurs in five ways.

[a] ‘The world is eternal’—in what five ways is there insistence by the view that grasps at extremes? ‘Form is both the world and eternal’—this insistence and grasping is a view. By that view, he has grasped an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at extremes. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the first view that grasps at extremes, namely, ‘the world is eternal.’ A view that grasps at extremes is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

‘Feeling is both the world and eternal’… ‘Perception is both the world and eternal’… ‘Formations are both the world and eternal’… ‘Consciousness is both the world and eternal’—this insistence and grasping is a view. By that view, he has grasped an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at extremes. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the fifth view that grasps at extremes, namely, ‘the world is eternal.’ A view that grasps at extremes is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views. ‘The world is eternal’—in these five ways there is insistence by the view that grasps at extremes.

[b] ‘The world is not eternal’—in what five ways is there insistence by the view that grasps at extremes? ‘Form is both the world and not eternal’—this insistence and grasping is a view. By that view, he has grasped an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at extremes… this is the first view that grasps at extremes, namely, ‘the world is not eternal.’ A view that grasps at extremes is a wrong view, a corruption of view… these are fetters, and not views.

“Feeling is the world and is not eternal”… “Perception is the world and is not eternal”… “Volitional formations are the world and are not eternal”… “Consciousness is the world and is not eternal”—adherence and grasping is a view. By that view, he grasps an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view… These are fetters, and not views. Regarding the view that grasps at an extreme, ‘The world is not eternal,’ adherence occurs in these five ways.

[Ga] Regarding the view that grasps at an extreme, ‘The world is finite,’ in which five ways does adherence occur? Here, a certain person pervades a limited space as blue. It occurs to him: “This world is finite and circular.” He has the perception of finitude. What he pervades is both the basis and the world. That by which he pervades is both the self and the world—adherence and grasping is a view. By that view, he grasps an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the first view that grasps at an extreme, namely, ‘the world is finite.’ The view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view… These are fetters, and not views.

Here, a certain person pervades a limited space as yellow… as red… as white… as radiance. It occurs to him: “This world is finite and circular.” He has the perception of finitude. What he pervades is both the basis and the world. That by which he pervades is both the self and the world—adherence and grasping is a view. By that view, he grasps an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at an extreme… Regarding the view that grasps at an extreme, ‘The world is finite,’ adherence occurs in these five ways.

[Gha] “The world is infinite”—in what five ways is there adherence to a view that grasps at an extreme? Here, a certain person pervades a vast space as blue. To him, it occurs thus: “This world is infinite, boundless.” He has the perception of infinitude. That which he pervades is both the basis and the world; that by which he pervades is both the self and the world—this adherence and grasping is a view. By that view, he has grasped an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view is not the basis, and the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, and the basis is another. Both the view and the basis—this is the first view that grasps at an extreme: ‘the world is infinite.’ A view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

Here, a certain person pervades a vast space as yellow… as red… as white… as radiance. To him, it occurs thus: “This world is infinite, boundless.” He has the perception of infinitude. That which he pervades is both the basis and the world; that by which he pervades is both the self and the world—this adherence and grasping is a view. By that view, he has grasped an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at an extreme… “The world is infinite”—adherence to this view that grasps at an extreme occurs in these five ways.

[Ṅa] “The life-principle is the same as the body”—in what five ways is there adherence to a view that grasps at an extreme? ‘Form is both the life-principle and the body; what is the life-principle is the body, and what is the body is the life-principle’—this adherence and grasping is a view. By that view, he has grasped an extreme; therefore, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view is not the basis, and the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, and the basis is another. Both the view and the basis—this is the first view that grasps at an extreme: ‘the life-principle is the same as the body.’ A view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

Feeling is both the life-principle and the body... Perception is both the life-principle and the body... Volitional formations are both the life-principle and the body... 'Consciousness is both the life-principle and the body; what is the life-principle is the body, and what is the body is the life-principle'—this dogmatic adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one grasps an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at an extreme... With regard to the view that grasps at an extreme, 'that which is the life-principle is the body,' dogmatic adherence occurs in these five ways.

With regard to the view that grasps at an extreme, 'the life-principle is one thing, the body another,' in which five ways does dogmatic adherence occur? 'Form is the body, not the life-principle; the life-principle is not the body. The life-principle is one thing, the body another'—this dogmatic adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one grasps an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing, the basis another. Both the view and its basis—this is the first view that grasps at an extreme, that 'the life-principle is one thing, the body another.' A view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view... These are fetters, and not views.

Feeling is the body, not the life-principle... Perception is the body, not the life-principle... Volitional formations are the body, not the life-principle... 'Consciousness is the body, not the life-principle; the life-principle is not the body. The life-principle is one thing, the body another'—this dogmatic adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one grasps an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at an extreme... With regard to the view that grasps at an extreme, 'the life-principle is one thing, the body another,' dogmatic adherence occurs in these five ways.

[Cha] ‘A being exists after death’—in what five ways does dogmatic clinging to the view that holds to an extreme occur? Form, in this very existence, is subject to death. ‘A being, after the breaking up of the body, exists, persists, arises, and is reborn’—this dogmatic clinging and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one is taken as holding to an extreme; thus, it is a view that holds to an extreme. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. Whatever is the view and whatever is the basis—this is the first view that holds to an extreme, namely, ‘a being exists after death’. A view that holds to an extreme is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

Feeling, in this very existence, is subject to death… perception, in this very existence, is subject to death… formations, in this very existence, are subject to death… consciousness, in this very existence, is subject to death. ‘A being, after the breaking up of the body, exists, persists, arises, and is reborn’—this dogmatic clinging and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one is taken as holding to an extreme; thus, it is a view that holds to an extreme… ‘A being exists after death’—through these five aspects, dogmatic clinging to the view that holds to an extreme occurs.

[Ja] ‘A being does not exist after death’—in what five ways does dogmatic clinging to the view that holds to an extreme occur? Form, in this very existence, is subject to death. ‘A being, too, with the breaking up of the body, is annihilated and perishes; a being does not exist after death’—this dogmatic clinging and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one is taken as holding to an extreme; thus, it is a view that holds to an extreme. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. Whatever is the view and whatever is the basis—this is the first view that holds to an extreme, namely, ‘a being does not exist after death’. A view that holds to an extreme is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

Feeling, in this very existence, is of a nature to die... perception, in this very existence, is of a nature to die... formations, in this very existence, are of a nature to die... consciousness, in this very existence, is of a nature to die. A being, too, is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body. 'A being does not exist after death'—this adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one grasps an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at extremes... Regarding the view that grasps at extremes, which holds 'a being does not exist after death,' adherence occurs through these five aspects.

[Jha] Regarding the view that grasps at extremes, which holds 'a being both exists and does not exist after death,' by which five aspects does adherence occur? Form, in this very existence, is of a nature to die. 'A being, after the breakup of the body, both exists and does not exist'—this adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one grasps an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at extremes. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the first view that grasps at extremes, which holds 'a being both exists and does not exist after death.' A view that grasps at extremes is a wrong view... these are fetters and not views.

Feeling, in this very existence, is of a nature to die... perception, in this very existence, is of a nature to die... formations, in this very existence, are of a nature to die... consciousness, in this very existence, is of a nature to die. 'A being, after the breakup of the body, both exists and does not exist'—this adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one grasps an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at extremes... Regarding the view that grasps at extremes, which holds 'a being both exists and does not exist after death,' adherence occurs through these five aspects.

[Ña] ‘A being neither becomes nor does not become after death’—by which five aspects does adherence occur with regard to the view that grasps at an extreme? Form, right here, has the nature of death. ‘A being, after the breaking up of the body, after death, neither becomes nor does not become’—this adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one has grasped an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis: this is the first view that grasps at an extreme, namely, ‘a being neither becomes nor does not become after death.’ A view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

Feeling, right here, has the nature of death… perception, right here, has the nature of death… formations, right here, have the nature of death… consciousness, right here, has the nature of death. ‘A being, after the breaking up of the body, after death, neither becomes nor does not become’—this adherence and misapprehension is a view. By that view, one has grasped an extreme; thus, it is a view that grasps at an extreme. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis: this is the fifth view that grasps at an extreme, namely, ‘a being neither becomes nor does not become after death.’ A view that grasps at an extreme is a wrong view… these are fetters, and not views. With regard to the view that grasps at an extreme, namely, ‘a being neither becomes nor does not become after death,’ adherence occurs by these five aspects. With regard to the view that grasps at an extreme, adherence occurs by these fifty aspects.

The seventh, the Exposition of the View that Grasps at an Extreme, is concluded.

8. Exposition of Views Pertaining to the Past

141. In how many ways does adherence occur regarding views pertaining to the past? Four eternalist theories, four partial-eternalist theories, four theories of the finitude and infinitude of the world, four theories of endless equivocation, two theories of fortuitous origination—adherence regarding views pertaining to the past occurs in these eighteen ways.

The eighth exposition of views pertaining to the past.

9. Exposition of Views Pertaining to the Future

142. In how many ways does adherence occur regarding views pertaining to the future? Sixteen theories of a conscious afterlife, eight theories of an unconscious afterlife, eight theories of a neither conscious nor unconscious afterlife, seven annihilationist theories, five theories of Nibbāna in this very life—adherence regarding views pertaining to the future occurs in these forty-four ways.

The ninth exposition of views pertaining to the future.

10-12. Exposition of Views Beginning with Those that are Fettering

143. In how many ways does adherence occur regarding a view that is fettering? Whatever view is a viewpoint, a jungle of views… adherence to views, grasping of views—adherence regarding a view that is fettering occurs in these eighteen ways.

144. In how many ways does adherence occur in regard to the view bound by the conceit ‘I am’? ‘The eye is I’—this is adherence and grasping. The view bound by the conceit ‘I am’. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. Whatever is the view and whatever is the basis—this is the first view bound by the conceit ‘I am’. The view bound by conceit is wrong view… these are fetters, but not views.

‘The ear is I’…pe… ‘The nose is I’…pe… ‘The tongue is I’…pe… ‘The body is I’…pe… ‘The mind is I’…pe… ‘Forms are I’…pe… ‘Mental objects are I’… ‘Eye-consciousness is I’…pe… ‘Mind-consciousness is I’—this is adherence and misapprehension. This is the view bound by the conceit ‘I am’. The view is not the object; the object is not the view. The view is one thing; the object is another. Whatever is the view and whatever is the object—this is the eighteenth view bound by the conceit ‘I am’. The view bound by conceit is wrong view…pe… These are fetters, but not views. With respect to the view bound by the conceit ‘I am’, adherence occurs in these eighteen ways.

145. With respect to the view bound by the conceit ‘mine’, in which eighteen ways does adherence occur? ‘The eye is mine’—this is adherence and misapprehension. This is the view bound by the conceit ‘mine’. The view is not the object; the object is not the view. The view is one thing; the object is another. Whatever is the view and whatever is the object—this is the first view bound by the conceit ‘mine’. The view bound by conceit is wrong view…pe… These are fetters, but not views.

‘The ear is mine’…pe… ‘the nose is mine’…pe… ‘the tongue is mine’…pe… ‘the body is mine’…pe… ‘the mind is mine’…pe… ‘forms are mine’…pe… ‘mental objects are mine’…pe… ‘eye-consciousness is mine’…pe… ‘mind-consciousness is mine’—this is adherence and misapprehension. This is the view bound by the conceit ‘mine’. The view is not the object; the object is not the view. The view is one thing; the object is another. Whatever is the view and whatever is the object—this is the eighteenth view bound by the conceit ‘mine’. The view bound by conceit is wrong view…pe… These are fetters, but not views. With respect to the view bound by the conceit ‘mine’, adherence occurs in these eighteen ways.

The twelfth exposition of views beginning with those that are fettering.

13. Exposition of Views Connected with the Doctrine of Self

146. In what twenty ways does dogmatic clinging occur with regard to the view connected with the assertion of self? Here, an uninstructed ordinary person—who has not seen the noble ones, is unskilled in the Noble Dhamma, and is untrained in the Noble Dhamma; who has not seen true individuals, is unskilled in the Dhamma of true individuals, and is untrained in the Dhamma of true individuals—regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form in self, or self in form… (and so on for) feeling… perception… formations… consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness in self, or self in consciousness…

How does one regard form as self? Here, someone regards the earth kasina… the white kasina as self. ‘What the white kasina is, that is I; what I am, that is the white kasina’—thus, one regards the white kasina and self as non-dual. Just as with the flame of an oil lamp that is burning, one regards the flame and the color as non-dual: ‘The flame is the color; the color is the flame.’ In the same way, someone regards the white kasina as self… This is the first view, based on form, connected with the assertion of self. The view connected with the assertion of self is wrong view… These are fetters, but not views. Thus, one regards form as self… In these twenty ways, dogmatic clinging occurs with regard to a view connected with the assertion of self.

The thirteenth exposition of the view connected with the assertion of self.

14. Exposition of the View Connected with the Assertion of the World

147. In what eight ways does adherence arise with regard to a view connected with worldly talk? ‘The self and the world are eternal’—this adherence and grasping is a view connected with worldly talk. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the first view connected with worldly talk. A view connected with worldly talk is wrong view… these are fetters, and not views.

‘The self and the world are not eternal’… ‘The self and the world are both eternal and not eternal’… ‘The self and the world are neither eternal nor not eternal’… ‘The self and the world are finite’… ‘The self and the world are infinite’… ‘The self and the world are both finite and infinite’… ‘The self and the world are neither finite nor infinite’—this adherence and grasping is a view connected with worldly talk. The view is not the basis; the basis is not the view. The view is one thing; the basis is another. That which is the view and that which is the basis—this is the eighth view connected with worldly talk. A view connected with worldly talk is wrong view… these are fetters, and not views. In these eight ways, adherence arises with regard to a view connected with worldly talk.

The fourteenth is the Exposition of Views Connected with Worldly Talk.

15-16. Exposition of the Views of Existence and Non-existence

148. Adherence by way of shrinking back is the view of existence. Adherence by way of overshooting is the view of non-existence. With regard to adherence in thirty-five ways to the view of gratification, how many are views of existence, and how many are views of non-existence? With regard to adherence in twenty ways to the view of self, how many are views of existence, and how many are views of non-existence?… With regard to adherence in eight ways to a view connected with worldly talk, how many are views of existence, and how many are views of non-existence?

Adherence to the view of gratification is in thirty-five ways; some are views of existence, and some are views of non-existence. Adherence to the view of self is in twenty ways; fifteen are views of existence, and five are views of non-existence. Adherence to wrong view is in ten ways; all of them are views of non-existence. Adherence to identity view is in twenty ways; fifteen are views of existence, and five are views of non-existence. Adherence to the eternalist view based on identity is in fifteen ways; all of them are views of existence. Adherence to the annihilationist view based on identity is in five ways; all of them are views of non-existence.

‘The world is eternal’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; all of them are views of existence. ‘The world is not eternal’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; all of them are views of non-existence. ‘The world is finite’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; some are views of existence, some are views of non-existence. ‘The world is infinite’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; some are views of existence, some are views of non-existence. ‘The life-principle and the body are the same’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; all of them are views of non-existence. ‘The life-principle is one thing, the body another’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; all of them are views of existence. ‘The Tathāgata exists after death’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; all of them are views of existence. ‘The Tathāgata does not exist after death’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; all of them are views of non-existence. ‘The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; some are views of existence, some are views of non-existence. ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’—adherence in five ways to the view of grasping at extremes; some are views of existence, some are views of non-existence.

As to adherence in eighteen ways to views about the past, some are views of existence, and some are views of non-existence. As to adherence in forty-four ways to views about the future, some are views of existence, and some are views of non-existence. As to adherence in eighteen ways to views that are fetters, some are views of existence, and some are views of non-existence. As to adherence in eighteen ways to the view bound by the conceit 'I am', all of them are views of non-existence. As to adherence in eighteen ways to the view bound by the conceit 'Mine', all of them are views of existence. As to adherence in twenty ways to views connected with the doctrine of self, fifteen are views of existence, and five are views of non-existence. As to adherence in eight ways to views connected with the doctrine of the world, some are views of existence, and some are views of non-existence.

All those views are views of gratification. All those views are views following the self. All those views are wrong views. All those views are identity views. All those views are views that grasp at an extreme. All those views are views that are fetters. All those views are views connected with the doctrine of self.

Speculators resort to these two: the view of existence and the view of non-existence. They have no knowledge of that cessation wherein this world is of perverted perception.

149. “Monks, being beset by two views, some devas and humans shrink back, and some overshoot; but those with vision see. And how, monks, do some shrink back? Monks, devas and humans delight in existence, are fond of existence, and rejoice in existence. When the Dhamma is taught for the cessation of existence, their minds do not leap forward, do not become confident, do not settle down, or become resolute. Thus, monks, do some shrink back.

“And how, Bhikkhus, do some overshoot? Some, being afflicted, ashamed, and disgusted by existence itself, delight in non-existence, [thinking]: ‘Sirs, since this self, with the breaking up of the body, after death, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is the truth.’ In this way, Bhikkhus, some overshoot.”

“And how, Bhikkhus, do those with the eye [of wisdom] see? Here, Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu sees what has come to be as it has come to be. Having seen what has come to be as it has come to be, he is practicing for disenchantment with what has come to be, for dispassion towards it, for its cessation. In this way, Bhikkhus, do those with the eye [of wisdom] see.”

“One who, having seen what has come to be as it has come to be, and the transcending of what has come to be, is liberated in the state of what truly is, through the destruction of craving for existence.”

“That bhikkhu, indeed, having fully understood what has come to be, is without craving for any state of existence. Through the cessation of what has come to be, he does not come to renewed existence.”

150. There are three persons of corrupt view, and three persons of accomplished view. Who are the three persons of corrupt view? A sectarian, a disciple of a sectarian, and one who holds wrong view—these are the three persons of corrupt view.

Who are the three persons of accomplished view? The Tathāgata, a disciple of the Tathāgata, and one who holds right view—these are the three persons of accomplished view.

“A person who is angry and resentful, ungracious and of corrupt view, and deceitful—one should know him as an outcast.”

“Not angry and not resentful, pure, having attained purity, of accomplished view and wise—one should know him as a noble one.”

There are three corrupt views and three accomplished views. What are the three corrupt views? ‘This is mine’—this is a corrupt view. ‘This I am’—this is a corrupt view. ‘This is my self’—this is a corrupt view. These are the three corrupt views.

What are the three perfected views? 'This is not mine' is a perfected view. 'I am not this' is a perfected view. 'This is not my self' is a perfected view. These are the three perfected views.

'This is mine'—what view is this, how many views are there, by what extreme are these views supported? 'I am this'—what view is this, how many views are there, by what extreme are these views supported? 'This is my self'—what view is this, how many views are there, by what extreme are these views supported?

'This is mine' is a view pertaining to the past. There are eighteen such views. Those views are supported by the past extreme. 'I am this' is a view pertaining to the future. There are forty-four such views. Those views are supported by the future extreme. 'This is my self' is the twenty-fold view of self. It is the twenty-fold personality view. These are the sixty-two speculative views which have the personality view as their chief. Those views are supported by the past and future extremes.

151. Bhikkhus, whoever has reached a final conclusion in me, all of them are perfected in view. Of those perfected in view, five attain the final end here, and five attain the final end after departing from here. Which five attain the final end here? The seven-times-at-most, the family-to-family, the one-seeder, the once-returner, and the one who is an Arahant in this very life—these five attain the final end here.

Which five attain the final end after departing from here? The one who attains parinibbāna in the interval, the one who attains parinibbāna upon landing, the one who attains parinibbāna without exertion, the one who attains parinibbāna with exertion, and the one who is bound upstream, going to the Akaniṭṭha realm—these five attain the final end after departing from here.

Bhikkhus, whoever has reached a final conclusion in me, all of them are perfected in view. Of those perfected in view, for these five the final end is here, and for these five the final end is after departing from here.

Bhikkhus, whoever has unwavering faith in me, all of them are stream-enterers. Of those stream-enterers, for five the final attainment is here, and for five the final attainment is after having abandoned this realm. For which five is the final attainment here? For the one with a maximum of seven more existences, for the one who goes from clan to clan, for the one with a single seed, for the once-returner, and for the one who is an Arahant in this very life—for these five, the final attainment is here.

For which five is the final attainment after having abandoned this realm? For the one who attains Parinibbāna in the interval, for the one who attains Parinibbāna upon landing, for the one who attains Parinibbāna without prompting, for the one who attains Parinibbāna with prompting, and for the upstream-goer, heading for the Akaniṭṭha realm—for these five, the final attainment is after having abandoned this realm.

Bhikkhus, whoever has unwavering faith in me, all of them are stream-enterers. Of those stream-enterers, for these five the final attainment is here. For these five the final attainment is after having abandoned this realm.

The sixteenth is the exposition of the views of being and non-being.

The Discourse on Views is concluded.