English
Is the convention of the Blessed Buddha supramundane? Yes. The path, the fruit, Nibbāna, the stream-entry path, the stream-entry fruit, the once-returner path, the once-returner fruit, the non-returner path, the non-returner Is fruit, the path to arahantship, the fruit of arahantship, foundations of mindfulness, right exertions, bases of spiritual power, faculty, power, a factor of awakening? It should not be said thus... Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha supramundane? Yes. Are there some who hear the discourse of the Blessed Buddha? Yes. Is the supramundane Dhamma knowable by ear, does it strike the ear, does it come within the range of the ear? It should not be said thus... Is not the supramundane Dhamma not knowable by ear, does it not strike the ear, does it not come within the range of the ear? Yes. If the supramundane Dhamma is not knowable by ear, does not strike the ear, does not come within the range of the ear, then it should not be said – "the discourse of the Blessed Buddha is supramundane." 349. Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha supramundane? Yes. Are there some who would be delighted by the discourse of the Blessed Buddha? Yes. Is the supramundane Dhamma a basis for lust, delightful, desirable, intoxicating, binding, bewildering? It should not be said thus... Is not the supramundane Dhamma not a basis for lust, not delightful, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not bewildering? Yes. If the supramundane Dhamma is not a basis for lust, not delightful, not desirable, not intoxicating, not binding, not bewildering, then it should not be said – "the discourse of the Blessed Buddha is supramundane." Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha supramundane? Yes. Are there some who would be angered by the discourse of the Blessed Buddha? Yes. Is the supramundane Dhamma a basis for hatred, a basis for anger, a basis for aversion? It should not be said thus... Is not the supramundane Dhamma not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for aversion? Yes. If the supramundane Dhamma is not a basis for hatred, not a basis for anger, not a basis for aversion, then it should not be said – "the discourse of the Blessed Buddha is supramundane." Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha supramundane? Yes. Are there some who... in the discourse of the Blessed One, they would be deluded? Yes. Is the supramundane Dhamma a cause for delusion, a cause for ignorance, a cause for blindness, an obstruction to wisdom, a side of destruction, not conducive to Nibbāna? It should not be said so... Is not the supramundane Dhamma not a cause for delusion, not a cause for ignorance, not a cause for blindness, conducive to the growth of wisdom, not a side of destruction, conducive to Nibbāna? Yes. If the supramundane Dhamma is not a cause for delusion, not a cause for ignorance, not a cause for blindness, conducive to the growth of wisdom, not a side of destruction, conducive to Nibbāna, then it should not be said – "The discourse of the Blessed Buddha is supramundane." 350. Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha supramundane? Yes. All those who hear the discourse of the Blessed Buddha, do they all develop the path? It should not be said so... All those who hear the discourse of the Blessed Buddha, do they all develop the path? Yes. Foolish ordinary people hear the discourse of the Blessed Buddha, do foolish ordinary people develop the path? It should not be said so... A matricide develops the path... a parricide... a killer of an Arahant... one who sheds blood... one who causes schism in the Sangha hears the discourse of the Blessed Buddha, does one who causes schism in the Sangha develop the path? It should not be said so... 351. Is it possible to point out a heap of grain or a heap of gold with a golden stick? Yes. Even so, the Blessed One, with supramundane discourse, speaks of both mundane and supramundane Dhamma. Is it possible to point out a heap of grain or a heap of gold with a castor plant stick? Yes. Even so, the Blessed One, with mundane discourse, speaks of both mundane and supramundane Dhamma. 352. Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha mundane when he speaks of the mundane, and supramundane when he speaks of the supramundane? Yes. When he speaks of the mundane, it strikes the mundane ear; when he speaks of the supramundane, it strikes the supramundane ear; when he speaks of the mundane, by mundane consciousness... By knowledge they understand. When speaking of the supramundane, by supramundane consciousness they understand. When speaking of the mundane, ordinary people understand. When speaking of the supramundane, do disciples understand? It should not be said thus (...). Should it not be said: "The discourse of the Blessed Buddha, when speaking of the mundane, is mundane; when speaking of the supramundane, is supramundane"? Yes. Does not the Blessed One speak of both mundane and supramundane phenomena? Yes. If the Blessed One speaks of both mundane and supramundane phenomena, then indeed it should be said: "The discourse of the Blessed Buddha, when speaking of the mundane, is mundane; when speaking of the supramundane, is supramundane." Is the discourse of the Blessed Buddha, when speaking of the mundane, mundane; when speaking of the supramundane, supramundane? Yes. When speaking of the path, it is the path; when speaking of the non-path, it is the non-path. When speaking of the fruit, it is the fruit; when speaking of the non-fruit, it is the non-fruit. When speaking of Nibbāna, it is Nibbāna; when speaking of non-Nibbāna, it is non-Nibbāna. When speaking of the conditioned, it is the conditioned; when speaking of the unconditioned, it is the unconditioned. When speaking of form, it is form; when speaking of non-form, it is non-form. When speaking of feeling, it is feeling; when speaking of non-feeling, it is non-feeling. When speaking of perception, it is perception; when speaking of non-perception, it is non-perception. When speaking of formations, they are formations; when speaking of non-formations, they are non-formations. When speaking of consciousness, it is consciousness; when speaking of non-consciousness, it is non-consciousness. It should not be said thus (...). The discourse on expression is concluded. 2. The Second Chapter (20) 11. Discourse on Cessation 353. Are there two cessations? Yes. Are there two cessations of suffering? It should not be said thus (...). Are there two cessations of suffering? Yes. Are there two truths of cessation? It should not be said thus (...). Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two truths of suffering? It should not be said thus... Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two truths of origin? It should not be said thus... Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two truths of the path? It should not be said thus.... Are there two truths of cessation? Yes. Are there two protections...? Two refuges...? Two shelters...? Two ultimate goals...? Two unshakeables...? Two deathless states...? Two Nibbānas? It should not be said thus.... Are there two Nibbānas? Yes. Is there a highness or lowness, Inferiority or superiority, Exaltation or degradation, Boundary or distinction, Line or interval between the two Nibbānas? It should not be said thus.... Are there two cessations? Yes. Do not reflections cease formations That are ceased without reflection? Yes. If reflections cease formations That are ceased without reflection, Then it should not be said: "There are two cessations." Should it not be said: "There are two cessations"? Yes. Are not formations ceased without reflection utterly broken, And formations ceased by reflection utterly broken? Yes. If formations ceased without reflection are utterly broken, And formations ceased by reflection are utterly broken, Then it should indeed be said: "There are two cessations." Are there two cessations? Yes. Are formations ceased by reflection Ceased by means of the Noble Path? Yes. Are formations ceased without reflection Ceased by means of the Noble Path? It should not be said thus.... Are there two cessations? Yes. Do formations ceased by reflection not arise again? Yes. Do formations ceased without reflection not arise again? It should not be said thus... Therefore, it should not be said: "There are two cessations." The discourse on cessation is concluded. The Second Chapter. Its summary: Insult to others, ignorance, Doubt, and crossing over others; Division of speech, sustenance of suffering, Mental steadfastness, and remorse; Gradual realization, And usage, and cessation, thus.