Isolation is traditionally categorized as being of three types: (1) isolation of the body (kāyaviveka), which refers to remaining in solitude free from desirous or disturbing objects; (2) isolation of the mind (cittaviveka), which is mental detachment from desirous or disturbing objects; and (3) isolation from the “substrate” (upadhiviveka), which indicates detachment from all things that perpetuate rebirth, including the five aggregates, the afflictions, and karma.

This may refer to either literal, bodily isolation, i.e., seclusion, or to the isolation of the mind from certain (usually undesirable) mental factors. The two senses are related, and as the relationship between the two senses is both implicitly and explicitly thematized in Buddhist texts, a single translation for both the more “outer” and the more “inner” forms of isolation is here meant to respect a clearly intended suggestion found throughout Buddhist literature. The term can also refer to conceptual isolation, i.e., discernment.

Isolation is traditionally categorized as being of three types: (1) isolation of the body (kāyaviveka), which refers to remaining in solitude free from desirous or disturbing objects; (2) isolation of the mind (cittaviveka), which is mental detachment from desirous or disturbing objects; and (3) isolation from the “substrate” (upadhiviveka), which indicates detachment from all things that perpetuate rebirth, including the five aggregates, the afflictions, and karma.

Detachment is traditionally categorized as being of three types: (1) detachment or seclusion of the body (kāyaviveka), which refers to remaining in solitude free from desirous or disturbing objects; (2) detachment or seclusion of the mind (cittaviveka), which is mental detachment from desirous or disturbing objects; and, (3) detachment or seclusion from the “substrate” (upadhiviveka), which indicates detachment from all things that perpetuate rebirth, including the five aggregates, the kleśas, karma, etc. This last category is what is being referenced here.

This term usually has to do with a subjective state of ‘isolation,’ ‘separation,’ or ‘withdrawal,’ rather than a metaphysical idea. The Akṣayamatinirdeśa-sūtra contains a more or less parallel discussion of dben pa nyid in connection with diligence: “de la ’jug pa gang zhe na gang dge ba’i rtsa ba thams cad rtsom pa’o/ gnas pa gang zhe na. gangs sems dben pa’o.” Jens Braarvig translates this passage: “What then is activity? Undertaking all roots of good. What then is stillness? Aloofness of thought.” (Braarvig, vol. 1, pp. 175-76; vol. 2, p. 50.) Here sems dben pa is glossed in the Akṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā (of Vasubandhu or perhaps Sthiramati) as: sems dben pa ni mi dge ba spangs pa dang dge ba rtsom pa gang la yang mi rtog pa’o. This can be translated as, “Disengagement of one’s thought is not thinking at all about giving up the non-virtuous and undertaking the virtuous.” In any case, the term viviktatā in this context and in the Akṣayamatinirdeśa does not seem to be about emptiness, but more about a type of aloof or disengaged diligence that does not conceptualize the virtues and non-virtues of the actions undertaken.

See “solitude.”

This term seems here to refer to physical isolation, but it can have a mental sense as well.

Equivalent to med pa (“nonexistent”) or stong pa (“empty”), with a sense of “being devoid of.”