What Constitutes a Mere Intellectual Adherent?

In modern society, with advanced information access, obtaining sutras is easy, and intellectual comprehension is strong. When someone explains that the five aggregates are impermanent and devoid of self, arising and ceasing, fifty percent of people can intellectually grasp that the five aggregates are devoid of self, realizing that the physical body is not real but an illusory false shell. Even some who do not study Buddhism often say that the physical body is a false shell, a foul bag of skin, impermanent and subject to birth and death. Yet, despite saying so, none have eradicated the view of the body or the view of self; each still clings severely to the notion of "I."

If the intellect merely acknowledging that the five aggregates are devoid of self were equivalent to eradicating the view of self, then attaining the fruits of enlightenment would be far too easy. More than half of Buddhist practitioners could sever the three fetters, be freed from the suffering of the three lower realms, and become noble sages. In that case, what would Buddhism have to worry about? Sentient beings would have nothing to fear. Shakyamuni Buddha could rest assured about the Saha world, without concern for the decline of Buddhism. Yet, reality is not so.

Those who merely intellectually understand the absence of self and then assume they have eradicated the view of self—further believing their afflictions are slight and claiming to have attained the second fruit—will face great trouble at the time of death, and their future lives will be filled with anguish. It is best for them to spend their remaining time in this life considering how to remedy this, adopting effective and feasible measures to carefully contemplate the five aggregates anew, truly eradicating the view of self and eliminating the heavy karma of false speech.

Currently, within the Buddhist community, it is difficult to say how many genuine second-fruit practitioners exist. It seems like an era of sages emerging in great numbers, but what is the actual situation? It is in utter disarray. If the third fruit were not defined by the attainment of the first dhyāna or marked by the eradication of sensual desire, who knows how many would claim to have attained the third fruit. Already, some are propagating that attaining the third or fourth fruit does not require the first dhyāna, and that bodhisattvas of the first or second ground need not cultivate the first dhyāna. What such propaganda portends is easily imagined. If this continues, the boundary between ordinary beings and sages will vanish entirely: anyone who comprehends a bit of the Dharma will be deemed a sage. These so-called sages are, in truth, merely disciples of mere intellectual understanding.