English
4. The Fourth Stage of Sutta Investigation 40. What is sutta investigation there? Therein, with wholesome states, with unwholesome states, it is thoroughly examined in sequence. What indeed did this sutta begin with? ... Does it fit with those suttas that are established as authoritative, or does it not fit? As the Blessed One teaches defilements there in the beginning. What is taught? Is the abandoning of those defilements taught, or is it not taught? It is to be examined. If the abandoning of those defilements is not taught by the Blessed One, wholesome states are to be sought where those unwholesome states go to abandonment. If, while searching, one does not find, there, unwholesome states are to be removed, to be investigated, a sutta pertaining to defilement, if defilements are being removed. Or those that do not apply, there it is to be examined: do noble path factors in those stages cause defilements to go to abandonment, or do they not go? However many defilements are taught, not that many noble states are taught. Where defilements go to abandonment, there, those defilements that do not fit as an opposite to noble states are to be removed, if, when removed, it makes a connection. There, it is to be investigated thus: Do two or three, or more than that, defilements go to abandonment by one noble path? If, when investigated thus, it makes a connection, there, it is to be examined: by tradition, or by the transmission of the Piṭaka, the meaning and non-meaning of the sutta. Or that which cannot be pointed out in a sutta, the sutta should not be doubted at all. Thus, as wholesome states are in the beginning, that those defilements should be abandoned, they are to be examined. Or wholesome beforehand, or by the opposite, the teaching beforehand, neither less nor more, is to be grasped. As the first example, for which defilements, now, which noble states are taught, are these defilements abandoned by these noble states, or are they not abandoned? This is to be investigated. If, when examined, they fit, they are to be accepted. But if they do not fit, those defilements that are not opposites h are, those defilements should not be opposed. And those noble qualities that are opposed, those noble qualities should be set aside. For noble qualities do not lead to the abandonment of non-returner defilements, nor do noble qualities conduce to the abandonment of all defilements. Just as skillful loving-kindness and unskillful lust, it is not that skillful loving-kindness, in its capacity as such, arises for the abandonment of unskillful lust; aversion goes to abandonment by loving-kindness. Therefore, both defilements should be examined. And whatever teaching is taught, whether skillful or unskillful, that should be set aside. If they contend, there is no need to examine what is being set aside. Or two defilements might be abandoned by one noble quality, or one defilement might be abandoned by two noble qualities. Or, even when thus examined, it is fitting; there it should be investigated, or as it is fitting, there it should be investigated, just as a Sutta can be pointed out, for one should not doubt a Sutta. Defilement, when noble qualities are taught, should be examined from both sides. Indeed, whether these defilements are taught, and whether these noble qualities are taught, by verse or by exposition, do these defilements truly get abandoned by these noble qualities, or do they not get abandoned? Or do these noble qualities conduce to the abandonment of these defilements? Although unskillful qualities go to abandonment by skillful qualities. Yet not all unskillful qualities go to abandonment by all noble qualities. Just as loving-kindness is skillful and lust is unskillful, it is not that skillful loving-kindness, in the case of unskillful lust, causes lust to be abandoned by loving-kindness; aversion goes to abandonment by loving-kindness. Thus, defilement, having been made, goes to abandonment by the Sutta. It is not that the Sutta, having been made 'teaching', conduces to the abandonment of all defilement. But that noble quality of the Sutta which is opposed to defilement, that goes to abandonment by it. 41. There, when skillful qualities are taught, in a Sutta or an exposition, defilements do not fit, nor do noble qualities; they should be pointed out in a great region. They should be eliminated by means of elimination. Therein, regarding defilements and the noble teachings taught, even if by that noble teaching those defilements are abandoned. Even there, it should be further investigated. For what reason should these defilements be abandoned? For what reason are the noble teachings taught? And in whatever way the noble teachings are taught, in that very way this defilement exists. Indeed, there is one defilement, or by that noble teaching, it is not to be abandoned in various other ways, just as wrong view, lust, and ignorance are to be abandoned by seeing. And if that ignorance is to be abandoned by development, or the stages of dhammas are to be abandoned by development. That very (ignorance) is abandoned by seeing the unconditioned, by liberation from the higher fetters, by signless concentration of mind, by non-attention. Thus, with meaning and with phrasing, it should be investigated. Those defilements to be abandoned by seeing, the noble teaching is taught in the mode of seeing. Those to be abandoned by development, the noble teaching is taught in the mode of development. Those to be abandoned by practice, the noble teaching is taught in the mode of practice. Thus, those to be abandoned by removal, up to the seven influxes to be dealt with, and so on, otherwise. Otherwise, if this dhamma is to be abandoned, and the noble teaching is taught in another mode, that noble teaching should be sought otherwise. If this dhamma is sought, and whoever teaches in whatever mode, that noble teaching should be sought. By that mode the defilement is abandoned. That should be investigated there. Then if it does not fit, if indeed the Sutta prescribed by that (teaching) should be examined. As it fits, so it should be taken. As it does not fit, so it should not be taken. Surely this was not spoken by the Blessed One, or was wrongly grasped by the venerable one. As it should be indicated in the great authorities, that which was taught as it is by the Blessed One, and whatever dhamma is taught, whether wholesome or unwholesome, the condition of that dhamma should be sought. Indeed, without conditions, a dhamma without conditions does not arise. Therein, what is the mode for investigation? Therein, such a nature, with cause, with condition, this dhamma is said. This should be investigated. And that condition is threefold: mild, moderate, intense. There, in a mild condition, a mild quality should be taken. Thus, this condition is twofold: a distant condition and an immediate condition. That condition, by its mildness, should be sought for the measure of the illness. What is the reason? Any one condition reaches completion or fulfillment through other conditions. There, the teaching that has been taught, for that teaching, by this reason or cause, the origin should be sought. Just as a condition by a cause and a condition, its outflow for that teaching should be sought. Just as what is indicated seeks the principal in the foundation, that condition should be sought. Indeed, for a mild quality, there is no intense outflow, nor for an intense outflow, a mild quality. Rather, for a mild, a mild; for a moderate, a moderate; for an intense, an intense is fitting. That should be taken. If it is not fitting, it should not be taken. And whatever teaching the Blessed One begins to teach, that very teaching he teaches from middle to end. Just as in the foundation of a Sutta, he indicates teachings at the beginning, that very thing is much the conclusion of that Sutta. For by virtue of that teaching, that Sutta becomes a verse or an explanation, small or large. Just as there are two kinds: conformity or establishment, and establishment of teaching. The form of the teaching should also be sought. And just as the Blessed One taught the restraint of the five faculties for the suppression of craving, it is indeed desire. He teaches, just as in the parable of the cowherd Sutta and in other Suttas, the Blessed One speaks, it is indeed desire. In the Majjhima Nikāya, this thought is in conformity with the Blessed One's teaching. Thus, that teaching should be sought in other explanations as well. Indeed, it should not be seen in just one Sutta. What is fitting should be taken. 42. There, what is permitted? Whatever Sutta was not spoken by the Blessed One, and that is found in the Suttas themselves, thus it should be held. As if it were spoken by so-and-so, that Sutta should be investi- to be considered. Now, is this discourse approved and acceptable to the Blessed One, or not approved and acceptable? Some discourses on form are approved and acceptable to the Blessed One, some discourses on form are not approved and acceptable. Whatever the Ten-Powered One teaches without fully comprehending, all such discourses are not approved and acceptable to the Blessed One. There is a disciple who knows the range of the Ten-Powered Ones, in part and not in part, but does not fully know that power in any other way than by hearing. Just as Venerable Sāriputta admonished a brahmin, that Venerable One did not have knowledge of the variation in faculties and powers. Therefore, he caused a person who was to be further developed to arise in one who did not know the higher and lower states of that person. He was censured by the Blessed One. Just as Venerable Mahākassapa admonishes his nephew, endowed with immediate results, without illuminating his fingers with a psychic power, he possesses knowledge of the cause and basis of all phenomena and actions as they truly are. Therefore, he admonishes him,