What This Concept Is About
Have you ever had a moment like this: returning home late at night after overtime work, collapsing onto the sofa, the light from your phone screen cast across your face—your eyes are still open, but your mind is no longer thinking of anything. Not sleepy, not tired—just a brief, thoughtless blankness. If I told you that Buddhism has an extremely precise terminological system devoted entirely to this kind of "mind temporarily ceasing to function," and that it divides this state into two radically distinct types, would you be a little surprised?
The "two attainments" (二定, dvi-samādhi) is the collective name given in the *Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya* (阿毘達磨俱舍論, T1558) to two special meditative attainments: the attainment of non-perception (無想定, asaṃjñā-samāpatti) and the attainment of cessation (滅盡定, nirodha-samāpatti). Together they are also called the "two formless attainments" (二無心定), because their common defining feature is to cause the mind and mental factors (心心所, citta-caitta) to temporarily cease arising—that is, mental activity as a whole comes to a standstill. They are classified within the category of "disjunctive formations" (心不相應行法, citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra-dharma), belonging to the class of conditioned dharmas that do not accompany the mind and are provisionally designated as distinct formations.
Let us first unpack the term "mind and mental factors" (心心所, citta-caitta). "Mind" (心, citta) refers to the six consciousnesses as the mind-king (心王, citta-rāja); "mental factors" (心所, caitta) refers to the psychological concomitants that arise in conjunction with the mind—feeling (受, vedanā), perception (想, saṃjñā), volition (思, cetanā), and so forth. Ordinarily, whatever we think, feel, or decide is the result of the mind-king and mental factors working in coordination. What the two attainments do is to bring this entire operation to a temporary halt. Note: it is *temporary*, not annihilation; it is *non-arising*, not destruction.
But here a crucial distinction immediately emerges: although the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation both have "the cessation of mind and mental factors" as their intrinsic nature, they differ in almost every other dimension. To summarize their relationship in one sentence: they are two "mindless" states that look alike but differ completely in their origin, their destination, and their method of cultivation.
The attainment of non-perception (無想定, asaṃjñā-samāpatti) belongs to the fourth dhyāna (第四靜慮, caturtha-dhyāna) and is cultivated by ordinary beings (凡夫, pṛthagjana). Its preparatory mental orientation (加行, prayoga) is the "thought of renunciation" (出離想, niḥsaraṇa-saṃjñā)—the cultivator, weary of the clamor of perception, wishes to escape from perception, and thus takes "perception" as the object of aversion, using the power of concentration to suppress perception and its associated mental factors. Its retributive fruit (異熟果, vipāka-phala) is rebirth in the Heaven of Non-Perception (無想天, asaṃjñi-deva)—a special location within the fourth dhyāna heavens of the form realm, where beings born there have their consciousness suspended for a long time, as if in absorption. The attainment of non-perception belongs to the category of "definitely retributed" (順定受, niyata-vedanīya)—that is, once it is achieved, the corresponding retributive fruit is inevitably experienced.
The attainment of cessation (滅盡定, nirodha-samāpatti), by contrast, belongs to the "summit of existence" (有頂, bhavāgra)—the highest level of the formless realm, the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (非想非非想處, naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana). It is cultivated by noble ones (聖者, ārya)—practitioners who have already attained the fruits of the path; ordinary beings cannot achieve it. Its preparatory mental orientation is the "thought of stilling" (止息想)—the cultivator takes tranquility as joy, dislikes the arising of feeling and perception, and is especially averse to the subtle feeling and perception of the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, wishing to still all mental activity. It obtains the retributive fruit of the summit of existence, but belongs to the category of "indefinitely retributed" (順不定受, aniyata-vedanīya)—the retribution is not necessarily experienced. The attainment of cessation also has a more ancient name: the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception (滅受想定, saṃjñā-vedayita-nirodha), which derives from the scriptures.
Note that both names contain "perception" (想), and the attainment of cessation also contains "feeling and perception" (受想)—but this does not mean that the attainment of non-perception only ceases perception, or that the attainment of cessation only ceases feeling and perception. The treatise makes this explicit: this is "naming according to the primary object" (隨主要對象立名)—the cultivator of the attainment of non-perception is especially averse to "perception," and the cultivator of the attainment of cessation is especially averse to "feeling and perception," so the names highlight these objects, but what is actually ceased is the entirety of mental factors. This is like calling someone "Four-Eyes"—not because he is only glasses and nothing else, but because the glasses are the most conspicuous feature.
The common physical basis (所依, āśraya) of the two attainments is the body of the desire realm and the form realm. The verse says: "The two attainments depend on desire and form; the attainment of cessation first arises among humans." (二定依欲色，滅定初人中) This means: both attainments can arise based on a body in the desire realm or the form realm; but the attainment of cessation, when first achieved, can only be achieved in the human realm (人中)—it cannot first arise elsewhere. If a person achieves the attainment of cessation among humans and later loses it, then upon being reborn in the form realm, they can re-enter the attainment based on a form-realm body. The attainment of non-perception, however, can first arise in either the desire realm or the form realm.
There is another crucial difference: the attainment of non-perception is a dharma that occurs in the continuum of an "ordinary being" (異生, pṛthagjana), while the attainment of cessation is a dharma that occurs in the continuum of a "noble one" (聖者, ārya). This one point is almost a watershed: any practitioner who has not yet attained the noble fruits, no matter how deep their meditative accomplishment, can only enter the attainment of non-perception, not the attainment of cessation. Why? Because entering the attainment of cessation requires the mental orientation of "stilling thought," and this orientation must be grounded in a deep insight into the nature of "perception"—this is not a matter of meditative skill, but a matter of view (見地, darśana).
The treatise also discusses whether the two attainments are substantially real (實有, dravyatas) or provisionally designated (假立, prajñaptitas). The present school (the Sarvāstivāda, 說一切有部) maintains that they are substantially real, on the grounds that the two attainments possess an "obstructing" function—they can prevent the mind from arising, and this "ability to obstruct" itself demonstrates that it is a dharma. Another interpretation holds that there is no separate dharma called "attainment"; rather, the power of a prior concentrated mind causes the subsequent mind to temporarily cease functioning, and the "attainment" is provisionally designated upon this phase of non-arising. The present treatise does not adopt this latter view, but preserves the distinction between the two interpretations. This debate sounds highly technical, but it touches on a fundamental question: Does the state of "mind not functioning" itself count as a "thing"? If you think it does not, then the two attainments are mere names; if you think it has the capacity to prevent the mind from arising, then it is a dharma. This debate also resonates in contemporary philosophy—does "absence" count as a kind of "existence"? Is "silence" a kind of "sound"?
Additionally, the treatise says: "Having attained the two mindless attainments, one cannot thereby induce other superknowledges" (二無心定得，不能引餘通). This point is also worth noting: on the map of Buddhist practice, the two attainments are not meant for "acquiring superpowers." They are more like deep training in stilling, unrelated to magical transformations (神變, ṛddhi).
Beyond the *Kośa*, the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* (瑜伽師地論, T1579) also has a usage of "two attainments," but there the "two attainments" refers to the "attainment with signs" (有相定, sānimitta-samādhi) and the "attainment without signs" (無相定, animitta-samādhi), distinguished by whether the mental orientation (作意, manasikāra) has signs or lacks signs—the attainment with signs uses sign-bearing mental orientation for entering, abiding in, and emerging from absorption; the attainment without signs uses signless mental orientation for entering and abiding, but sign-bearing mental orientation for emerging. This is a different pair of categories from the "two mindless attainments" of the *Kośa*. The two usages share the same name but refer to different things—a point requiring special attention when reading.
A Walkthrough in Everyday Life
Now, let us take this concept out of the treatises and walk it through the life of a contemporary person. First, try a small experiment: right now, as you are reading this passage, your mind is functioning—you are recognizing characters (perception), understanding meaning (perception), judging whether this passage makes sense (volition), and perhaps feeling a little "interesting" or "too technical" (feeling). All of this is the mind and mental factors arising.
Now, imagine a scenario: you are scrolling through your phone on a commuter train, and you come across a video that is utterly boring—say, someone doing a mukbang, or a joke with no punchline whatsoever. But your finger mechanically keeps swiping up. Your eyes are watching, but your mind is barely "thinking"—you neither particularly dislike it nor particularly like it; you just… swipe. Is this state somewhat like "the mind not functioning very much"?
But this is not the attainment of non-perception, let alone the attainment of cessation. Why? Because your mind is actually still functioning—the act of "swiping" is driven by volition (思, cetanā); your faint feeling of "boredom" is the feeling mental factor operating; your recognition that "this is a video" is the perception mental factor at work. You are merely distracted, not with the mind and mental factors ceased. This is the most common point of misidentification: mistaking "absent-mindedness" for "mindlessness." When you are absent-minded, your mind is actually very busy—just not busy with what you think it should be busy with.
So what experience comes closer to the two attainments? Think of the "complete blankness" you occasionally experience: perhaps staring out the window, no thought arising in your mind at all; perhaps the "blank second" you occasionally encounter in yoga or meditation. In that moment, you are not thinking of anything, have no emotions, no judgments. This experience, structurally, is closer to "the mind and mental factors temporarily ceasing to arise"—it is indeed a temporary pause of mental activity.
But on closer inspection, which of the two attainments does it resemble more? If you are an ordinary person who has not systematically cultivated calm and insight (止觀, śamatha-vipaśyanā), your "blankness" arises more from "weariness of perception"—you are tired after a long day, you do not want to think anymore, you want to shut down your brain. This motivation is structurally isomorphic with the "thought of renunciation" preparatory practice of the attainment of non-perception: because one is weary of perception, one makes perception stop. The only difference is that the cultivator of the attainment of non-perception, on the basis of the fourth dhyāna's concentration, suppresses the perception mental factor with extremely strong focus until it completely ceases; while you, on the subway, are merely having your mental activity naturally wither under the combined effect of fatigue and endless scrolling.
Does the attainment of cessation have a counterpart in everyday life? Honestly, almost none. The attainment of cessation is entered by noble ones; its preparatory practice is "stilling thought"—not being weary of the clamor of perception, but having seen through the illusory nature of feeling and perception, actively stilling all mental activity. This state is not something a tired office worker stumbles into by chance; it is something a practitioner precisely enters after prolonged training. If we must find a rough analogy, it would be something like: after experiencing a violent emotional upheaval, suddenly all emotions settle, you are neither sad nor happy, and you do not even "know" that you are neither sad nor happy—that is an extremely deep stillness. But even this analogy is very rough, because the attainment of cessation does not even have "knowing."
Let us also walk through a point that is easily overlooked: the two attainments "depend on desire and form." What does this mean? It means that the person entering the attainment—this person's body is still in the desire realm or the form realm. He has not vanished, has not gone elsewhere; his body is still sitting here, breathing still continues, the heartbeat continues—only the activity of consciousness has stopped. This structure of "the body is here, the mind has ceased"—there is a counterpart in contemporary meditation practice: you sit on your cushion, your body is clearly in the room, but your conscious experience has already become unrelated to the room. Only, the two attainments go further—not "the content of consciousness has changed," but "consciousness itself has temporarily vanished."
But here we must be particularly vigilant against a misreading: "Mindless" does not mean the death of "unconsciousness," let alone coma. Coma is the state where consciousness ceases because of damage to bodily functions—it is passive, chaotic, not held by meditative concentration; the two attainments are the active cessation of consciousness held by meditative concentration—clear, orderly, and reversible. By analogy: coma is your computer being forcibly shut down because the power went out; the two attainments are you actively pressing the pause button—the system is still there, ready to resume at any time.
Why Contemporary People Need It
You might ask: I am a contemporary person who commutes, works overtime, and scrolls through my phone every day—what use is understanding an ancient, technical concept like the "two attainments"?
The first use is reacquainting ourselves with "the cessation of the mind." The tempo of contemporary life almost never permits the mind to stop. When awake, we scroll, work, converse; even the few dozen seconds waiting for an elevator, we pull out our phone to glance at it; when sleeping, we dream, and while dreaming the mind is still weaving stories. We have almost no experience of what it feels like for "the mind to completely stop." The concept of the two attainments tells us, with extreme precision: the mind *can* stop, and there is more than one way for it to stop. This recognition itself is liberating—it breaks a tacit default assumption: that the mind must keep going. You think it cannot stop; in fact, it can.
The second use is understanding the place of "stilling" (止, śamatha) on the path of practice. The two attainments are not isolated esoteric tricks; they are placed within the dharma-category of "disjunctive formations," alongside attainment, non-attainment, the life faculty, and so on, and discussed within the sequence of the nine gradual attainments (九次第定). This means that, on the map of Buddhist practice, causing the mind to cease functioning is a describable, classifiable, transmissible technical event, not a mystical experience. This attitude of "demystification" is extremely instructive for contemporary people—we are all too prone to mythologize or romanticize special states of consciousness, whereas the Buddhist tradition's attitude toward them is cool and analytical. The taxonomy of the two attainments tells us: even an experience as seemingly extreme as "mindlessness" can be precisely dissected, compared, and placed.
The third use is training in distinguishing the "similar" from the "real." The attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation look the same—both are "the mind not functioning"—but one is cultivated by ordinary beings and yields rebirth in the Heaven of Non-Perception, the other is cultivated by noble ones and yields the retribution of the summit of existence; one has "the thought of renunciation" as its preparatory practice, the other has "the thought of stilling"; one is definitely retributed, the other indefinitely retributed. If one only looks at the surface, one would conflate the two. Transpose this discernment into contemporary life: two behaviors that look identical (say, meditation, sitting in retreat,闭关) can have completely different inner motivations, views, and fruits. A meditation motivated by "escaping thoughts" and a meditation motivated by "seeing through the illusoriness of thoughts," even if the external posture is identical, occupy two completely different positions on the map of practice. What the two attainments teach us is precisely this kind of discernment—not looking at surfaces, but looking at structure and motivation.
The fourth use, perhaps the most profound: the two attainments force us to confront a philosophical question—when the mind is not functioning, is there still an "I"? If, in the attainment of non-perception or the attainment of cessation, all mental factors have ceased, then who is the "one who entered the attainment"? Is he still there? If he is, in what mode does he exist? If he is not, then who is it that returns upon emerging? This is not a purely intellectual game. The debate in the *Abhidharmakośa* over whether there is a "subtle mind" (細心) in the attainment of cessation—the Vibhāṣā masters maintaining that all minds cease, because if consciousness were present, feeling and perception would necessarily arise with it—is precisely an attempt to address this question. Contemporary consciousness research is also pursuing a similar question: when the brain's default mode network activity drops to extremely low levels, does the sense of self remain? Science's answer to this question remains unresolved. The Buddhist tradition's answer is: the mind not functioning does not mean the "I" disappears; on the contrary, it is precisely at the moment when the mind is not functioning that the illusory construction of "I" first becomes fully visible. This answer comes not from experimental data, but from the internal realization of practitioners. Science has not yet reached this depth, but Buddhism placed a precise teaching here more than two thousand years ago.
Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading one: The attainment of non-perception is the attainment of "not thinking," and the attainment of cessation is the attainment of "having ceased feeling and perception."
This is the most common error of taking words at face value. The treatise explicitly states: both attainments have "the cessation of mind and mental factors" as their intrinsic nature; the attainment of non-perception does not merely cease perception, nor does the attainment of cessation merely cease feeling and perception. The reason for the naming is that the respective preparatory practices are particularly averse to these dharmas. This is like a person named "Iron Pillar"—it does not mean he is a pillar made of iron; it just means his parents thought the name sounded tough.
Misreading two: The two attainments are just suppressing thoughts, roughly the same as "not thinking about anything."
Far from it. When you are "not thinking about anything," the mind is actually still functioning—you at least know "I am not thinking about anything," and this "knowing" is the mind functioning. In the two attainments, the mind and mental factors are entirely ceased, and even this "knowing that one is not thinking" is absent. To use a metaphor: "not thinking about anything" is the water's surface being calm; the two attainments are the water being completely frozen. Moreover, the two attainments are not achieved by "suppressing"—suppression requires effort, and effort is mental construction. The attainment of non-perception relies on the preparatory practice of "the thought of renunciation," and the attainment of cessation relies on "the thought of stilling"—both are mental activities completed *before* entering the attainment; once inside, the mind and mental factors have already ceased, so there is nothing to suppress.
Misreading three: The two attainments are advanced states, so practitioners should strive to enter the attainment of cessation.
This misreading does not hold within the framework of the *Kośa*. The two attainments are merely two dharmas among the "disjunctive formations"—byproducts of practice or training subjects, not the goal itself. The treatise even says, "Having attained the two mindless attainments, one cannot thereby induce other superknowledges"—even superknowledges cannot be induced by achieving the two attainments. This shows they are not stepping stones to greater abilities. The goal of Buddhist practice is liberation—seeing the path, cultivating the path, attaining the fruits. The two attainments are merely technical nodes along the way. Treating the two attainments as the goal is like treating "learning to hold your breath" as the ultimate goal of swimming—holding your breath is indeed related to swimming, but being able to hold your breath does not mean you can swim.
Misreading four: Since the attainment of cessation "ceases feeling and perception," is the noble one who enters it just like a stone?
This misreading conflates "the mind not functioning" with "having no sensation." The one who enters the attainment of cessation is not "without sensation"—sensation is the activity of mental factors, and he has ceased those activities; but neither is he "like a stone"—a stone has no meditative concentration, no preparatory practice, no capacity to enter or emerge from attainment. More importantly, the one who enters the attainment of cessation enters actively and consciously; the preparatory practice and volitional resolve before entering determine that the entry is clear and reversible. A stone has none of these. Furthermore, the treatise mentions that the attainment of cessation can be lost (退失), indicating that it is not a one-time "permanent shutdown"—it is a state that can be entered and emerged from.
Misreading five: Since the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation are both "mindless," they are the same thing, or differ only in degree of depth.
This is the most fundamental misreading. The difference between the two attainments is not one of degree, but of kind. One is cultivated by ordinary beings, the other by noble ones; one has the thought of renunciation as its preparatory practice, the other has the thought of stilling; one belongs to the fourth dhyāna, the other to the summit of existence; one yields rebirth in the Heaven of Non-Perception, the other yields the retribution of the summit of existence; one is definitely retributed, the other indefinitely; one can first arise in the desire realm or the form realm, the other can only first arise among humans. These differences are not minor patches and adjustments, but two attainments occupying fundamentally different coordinates in the dharmadhātu. To conflate the two is to treat "being asleep" and "being anesthetized" as the same thing—on the surface both involve loss of consciousness, but the mechanisms, consequences, and meanings are completely different.
Misreading six: The attainment of non-perception is a form of "escapism"—because one is annoyed, one stops thinking.
This misreading is the most subtle, and the one most worth guarding against for contemporary people. On the surface, the preparatory practice of the attainment of non-perception is indeed "the thought of renunciation"—being weary of the clamor of perception and wishing to escape it. This does share a structural similarity with the contemporary person's "I'm so annoyed, I don't want to think about anything." But the fundamental difference between the two lies in this: the cultivator of the attainment of non-perception enters the attainment on the basis of the fourth dhyāna's concentration, with the mental orientation of "the thought of renunciation"—that is a well-trained, clearly goal-directed, fully doctrine-supported practice; while the contemporary person's "I don't want to think about anything" is often a passive, powerless, dead-end exhaustion. The former is active stilling; the latter is passive depletion. To understand the attainment of non-perception as "escapism" is to project the present onto the past and the ordinary onto the noble. The cultivator of the attainment of non-perception is not fleeing from perception; rather, after directly observing perception with meditative power and understanding its faults, he chooses to still it—that is "letting go after seeing clearly," not "fleeing because one dare not look."
Finally, let us return to that concise verse from the *Abhidharmakośa*: "The two attainments depend on desire and form; the attainment of cessation first arises among humans." (二定依欲色，滅定初人中) Ten characters, encompassing the common physical basis of the two attainments and the special place of the first arising of the attainment of cessation. But its significance goes far beyond this—it reminds us: these seemingly lofty meditative states must all first be cultivated in the human realm. Not in the heavens, not in a pure land, but here in this human world, where afflictions blaze and consciousness races without rest. What the two attainments still is precisely the mind and mental factors that race day and night in the human realm; and the capacity to still them is precisely what is honed here in the human realm. This paradox may be the deepest teaching the two attainments offer us.