by Tang Huyen

"He who in this world has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless and pure — him do I call a holy man." — Dhammapada 412

Buddhism has historically advocated the dropping of
both extremes, morally, ontologically, epistemologically,
etc. Such dropping of both extremes is not called
anything, even less "non-dual", in the early canon, but
it is there, without any explicit name. Self-mortification
and self-indulgence, merit and demerit, being and
non-being, existence and non-existence, male and
female, etc. are unforgivingly dropped. The end is
reached when all mentation and mentational parameters
(such as the above pairs, and they are cited here as
mere samples) are dropped cleanly. "In the seen there
will be just the seen". "What and what they think it, it is
otherwise."

The Buddha says that "whatever innumerable views are
leaned onto by recluses and brahmans, all of them [in
turn] lean on two views, namely the view of existence
(bhava-dṛṣṭi) and the view of non-existence
(vibhava-dṛṣṭi)." MA, 103, 591a6–8, Mahā-vibhāṣā, T,
27, 1545, 38a, 1002b–c, partially in MN, I, 65 (11). These
two extremes are used in the immediately following
passage: becoming (bhava) or un-becoming (vi-bhava).

In the Scripture on the Analysis of the Six Modalities,
at the fourth form meditation, after concentrating on
equanimity, the meditator can reflect: "If I move this
equanimity, purified thus, into the place of infinite space
[and so on for each of the other three formless
attainments] and should develop my thought in
accordance with it, leaning on it, supported by it,
standing on it, taking it as object, attached to it, this
equanimity, purified thus, leaning on the place of infinite
space, is therefore composed (saṅkhataṃ etaṃ). What
is composed is impermanent, what is impermanent is
suffering; if it is suffering, I know suffering; after knowing
suffering, from the equanimity I do not move into the
place of infinite space [and so on for each of the other
three formless attainments]." If the monk with regard to
the four places contemplates them with wisdom as they
are, he does not accomplish them, does not move into
them. He therefore neither composes nor wills
out/mentates (n'eva abhisaṅkharoti nābhisañcetayati)
for becoming (bhava) or un-becoming (vi-bhava).

"'I am' (asmiti) is a thought (maññita, Skt. manyita),
'I am this' (ayam ahaṃ asmiti) is a thought, 'I will be' is
a thought, 'I will neither be nor not be' is a thought, 'I
will be with form' is a thought, 'I will be without form' is
a thought, 'I will be with notion' is a thought, 'I will be
without notion' is a thought, 'I will be neither with
notion nor without notion' is a thought; the monk thinks:
'If there is none of these thoughts, agitations, etc., the
mind is quiesced.'" (The Pali says: "when he is gone
beyond all thoughts, the sage is said to be at peace"
[sabba-maññitānaṃ tveva samatikkama muni santo ti
vuccati]). MA, 162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).

"If an ignorant person composes a meritorious
composition, his consciousness goes to merit
(puññaṃ ce saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti,
puññupagaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ); if he composes a
demeritorious composition, his consciousness goes to
demerit; if he composes an imperturbable composition,
his consciousness goes to imperturbation. If a monk
has gone beyond meritorious, demeritorious, and
imperturbable compositions, he composes nothing, he
wills nothing, grasps nothing in the world (n'eva puññam
saṅkhaṃ abhisaṅkharoti na apuññaṃ saṅkhaṃ na
āneñjaṃ, tato anabhisankharonto anabhisañcetayanto na
kiñci loke upādiyati)." SN, II, 82 (12, 51).

At SN, III, 53–54, the monk who is free of "I am this" is
said to wander about neither tied to this shore nor to the
other shore.

The Dhammapada on the same theme, tr. Thanissaro
Bhikkhu:

"He has gone
beyond attachment here
for both merit & evil —
sorrowless, dustless, & pure:
he's what I call
a brahman."

The same, tr. Buddharakkhita:

"He who in this world has transcended the ties of
both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless
and pure — him do I call a holy man." (412)

At AN, IV, 58–59 (7, 48) the Buddha speaks of the
woman who has transcended her womanhood (itthi
itthattaṃ ativattati) and the man who has transcended
his manhood (puriso purisattaṃ ativattati), in both
cases by not minding it (na manasi-karoti), not
attaching to it and not delighting in it (na rajjati
nābhiramati). The Buddha doesn't call it Nirvāṇa, but
that's what it is.

"Not thinking of good, not thinking of evil, what is your
original face?" (Hui-neng).

Colophon

Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on 14 January 2007, in "The non-symbolical mind" thread, in reply to Hollywood Lee. Author: Tang Huyen. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

One of the most systematically documented posts in the corpus on the dropping of both extremes. The four canonical anchors are: (1) the neither-black-nor-white deed (AN, MA) that leads to the ending of deed altogether; (2) the meditator who refuses all four formless attainments as "composed" and therefore exits them without composing or willing (MA 162/MN 140); (3) the monk who neither composes nor wills for becoming or un-becoming (SN II.82); (4) the brahman/holy man of Dhammapada 412 who has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit. The Hui-neng koan at the close returns from systematic exposition to the direct pointing that characterises Chan. Read alongside "Logic of Transcendence" (<[email protected]>) as the canonical-citation companion to that post's logical analysis.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲