English
If indeed three eyes were spoken of by the Blessed One – the fleshly eye, the divine eye, the eye of wisdom – then it should not be said: "There are only two eyes." Are there only two eyes? Yes. Indeed, was it not said by the Blessed One – "These, bhikkhus, are three eyes! Which three? The fleshly eye, the div Flesh eye, wisdom eye – these, monks, are the three eyes. Flesh eye, divine eye, Wisdom eye, unsurpassed; These three eyes, The supreme man declared. The arising of the flesh eye, The path of the divine eye; And when knowledge arose, The unsurpassed wisdom eye; By gaining that eye, One is freed from all suffering. Is there a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, it should not be said – "only two eyes." The discussion on the divine eye is concluded. 3. Third Chapter (28) 8. Discussion on the Divine Ear 375. Is the flesh ear, supported by Dhamma, a divine ear? Yes. Is the flesh ear a divine ear, and the divine ear a flesh ear? It should not be said thus. Is the flesh ear, supported by Dhamma, a divine ear? Yes. Is the divine ear like the flesh ear, and the flesh ear like the divine ear? It should not be said thus. Is the flesh ear, supported by Dhamma, a divine ear? Yes. Is that very flesh ear the divine ear, and that divine ear the flesh ear? It should not be said thus. Is the flesh ear, supported by Dhamma, a divine ear? Yes. Is the range, power, and sphere of the flesh ear like the range, power, and sphere of the divine ear? It should not be said thus. Is the flesh ear, supported by Dhamma, a divine ear? Yes. Does it become ungrasped, having been grasped? It should not be said thus. Does it become ungrasped, having been grasped? Yes. Does it become of the form realm, having been of the sense realm? It should not be said thus. Does it become of the form realm, having been of the sense realm? Yes. Does it become of the formless realm, having been of the form realm? It should not be said thus. Does it become of the formless realm, having been of the form realm? Yes. Does it become unincluded, having been included? It should not be said thus. 376. Is the flesh ear, supported by Dhamma, a divine ear? Yes. Is the divine ear, supported by Dhamma, the fleshy ear? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is the fleshy ear, supported by Dhamma, the divine ear? Yes. Is it just one ear? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is it just one ear? Yes. But weren't two ears spoken of by the Blessed One— "the fleshy ear, the divine ear"? Yes. If indeed two ears were spoken of by the Blessed One— the fleshy ear, the divine ear— then it should certainly not be said— "it is just one ear." The discussion on the divine ear is concluded. 3. The Third Chapter (29) 9. Discussion on the Knowledge of Beings' Deeds Is the knowledge of beings' deeds the divine eye? Yes. And does one attend to the knowledge of beings' deeds, and see forms with the divine eye? It should not be said thus... (etc.) And does one attend to the knowledge of beings' deeds, and see forms with the divine eye? Yes. Is there a combination of two contacts and two consciousnesses? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is the knowledge of beings' deeds the divine eye? Yes. And one attends to: "Indeed, these beings, sirs," and one attends to: "are endowed with misconduct in body," and one attends to: "are endowed with misconduct in speech," and one attends to: "are endowed with misconduct in mind," and one attends to: "are revilers of the Noble Ones," and one attends to: "are of wrong view," and one attends to: "have undertaken wrong-viewed actions," and one attends to: "they, with the breaking up of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of woe, a bad destination, a downfall, hell." And one attends to: "Or indeed, these beings, sirs," and one attends to: "are endowed with good conduct in body," and one attends to: "are endowed with good conduct in speech," and one attends to: "are endowed with good conduct in mind," and one attends to: "are not revilers of the Noble Ones," and one attends to: "are of right view," and one attends to: "have undertaken right-viewed actions." he thinks, "they, with the breaking up of the body, after death, are reborn in a good destination, a heavenly world," and he minds it, does he see forms with the divine eye? It should not be said thus... "They, with the breaking up of the body, after death, are reborn in a good destination, a heavenly world," and he minds it, does he see forms with the divine eye? Yes. Is there a conjunction of two contacts, two consciousnesses? It should not be said thus... 378. Is the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma the divine eye? Yes. Is there someone without the divine eye, who has not attained, not realized, not actualized the divine eye, who knows how beings fare according to their kamma? Yes. If there is someone without the divine eye, who has not attained, not realized, not actualized the divine eye, who knows how beings fare according to their kamma, then it should not be said – "the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma is the divine eye." Is the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma the divine eye? Yes. Does Venerable Sāriputta know the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma? Yes. If Venerable Sāriputta knows the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma, then it should not be said – "the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma is the divine eye." Is the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma the divine eye? Yes. Does Venerable Sāriputta know the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma? Yes. Does Venerable Sāriputta have the divine eye? It should not be said thus... Does Venerable Sāriputta have the divine eye? Yes. Did not Venerable Sāriputta say this – "Neither for past lives, nor for the divine eye; For the power of knowing others' minds, for the purification of the ear element; For the passing away and reappearance, no aspiration exists for me." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, it should not be said – "the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma is the divine eye." The discourse on the knowledge of how beings fare according to their kamma is concluded. 3. The Third Chapter (30) 10. Discourse on Restraint 379. Is there restraint among the devas? Yes. Is there lack of restraint among the devas? It should not be said thus. should be said... (etc.) Is there no lack of restraint among devas? Yes. Is there no restraint among devas? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is not restraint from lack of restraint virtue, is there restraint among devas? Yes. Is there lack of restraint among devas, from which restraint from lack of restraint is virtue? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Understand the refutation. If restraint from lack of restraint is virtue, and there is restraint among devas, then indeed it should be said: "There is lack of restraint among devas, from which restraint from lack of restraint is virtue." That which you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'Restraint from lack of restraint is virtue, there is restraint among devas,' but it should not be said: 'There is lack of restraint among devas, from which restraint from lack of restraint is virtue,'" is wrong. But if it should not be said: "There is lack of restraint among devas, from which restraint from lack of restraint is virtue," then indeed it should not be said: "Restraint from lack of restraint is virtue, there is restraint among devas." That which you say there: "It should indeed be said: 'Restraint from lack of restraint is virtue, there is restraint among devas,' but it should not be said: 'There is lack of restraint among devas, from which restraint from lack of restraint is virtue,'" is wrong. Is there restraint among humans, is there lack of restraint among them? Yes. Is there restraint among devas, is there lack of restraint among them? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is there restraint among devas, is there no lack of restraint among them? Yes. Is there restraint among humans, is there no lack of restraint among them? It should not be said thus... (etc.) 380. Is there abstinence from killing living beings among devas? Yes. Is there killing of living beings among devas? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is there abstinence from intoxicants, fermented liquor, and distilled liquor, which are causes of heedlessness, among devas? Yes. Is there intoxicants, fermented liquor, and distilled liquor, which are causes of heedlessness, among devas? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is there no killing of living beings among devas? Yes. Is there no abstinence from killing living beings among devas? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is there no intoxicants, fermented liquor, and distilled liquor, which are causes of heedlessness, among devas? Yes. Is there no abstinence from intoxicants, fermented liquor, and distilled liquor, which are causes of heedlessness, among devas? It should not be said thus... (etc.) Is there among humans abstinence from killing living beings, is there killing of living beings there? Yes. Is there among devas abstinence from killing living beings, is there killing of living beings there? It should not be said thus... Is there among humans abstinence from intoxicating drinks and drugs, a basis for heedlessness, is there intoxicating drinks and drugs, a basis for heedlessness, there? Yes. Is there among devas abstinence from intoxicating drinks and drugs, a basis for heedlessness, is there intoxicating drinks and drugs, a basis for heedlessness, there? It should not be said thus... Is there among devas abstinence from killing living beings, is there no killing of living beings there? Yes. Is there among humans abstinence from killing living beings, is there no killing of living beings there? It should not be said thus... Is there among devas abstinence from intoxicating drinks and drugs, a basis for heedlessness,