English
It should not be said thus... Is he unable to realize the Dhamma in between? Yes. Is the mother deprived of life... the father deprived of life... an Arahant deprived of life... the Tathāgata's blood caused to flow with malicious intent... the Saṅgha split? It should not be said thus... 642. Is the person who reaches the limit in seven lives fixed in reaching the limit in seven lives? Yes. Is there such a rule by which rule the person who reaches the limit in seven lives is fixed in reaching the limit in seven lives? It should not be said thus... Are there those foundations of mindfulness... right efforts... bases of psychic power... faculties... powers... factors of enlightenment by which factors of enlightenment the person who reaches the limit in seven lives is fixed in reaching the limit in seven lives? It should not be said thus... 643. Is there no such rule by which a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'? Yes. If indeed there is no such rule by which a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most', then it should not be said: "a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'." Are there not those foundations of mindfulness... factors of awakening by which a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'? Yes. If indeed there are not those factors of awakening by which a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most', then it should not be said: "a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'." 644. Is a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'? Yes. By the rule of a Once-Returner? It should not be said thus... (and so on) By the rule of a Non-Returner? It should not be said thus... (and so on) By the rule of an Arahant? It should not be said thus... (and so on) By what rule? By the rule of a Stream-Enterer. Is a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'? Yes. All those who enter the rule of Stream-Entry, are they all fixed as 'seven-times-at-most'? It should not be said thus... (and so on) 645. Should it not be said: "a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'"? Yes. Is he not a 'seven-times-at-most'? Yes. If indeed he is a 'seven-times-at-most', then it should be said: "a person who is a 'seven-times-at-most' is fixed as a 'seven-times-at-most'." The discourse on the 'seven-times-at-most' is concluded. 12. The Twelfth Chapter (121) 6. The discourse on the 'family-to-family' one 646. Should it not be said: "a person who is a 'family-to-family' one is fixed as a 'family-to-family' one"? Yes. Is he not a 'family-to-family' one? Yes. If indeed he is a 'family-to-family' one, then it should be said: "a person who is a 'family-to-family' one is fixed as a 'family-to-family' one." The discourse on the 'family-to-family' one is concluded. 12. The Twelfth Chapter (122) 7. The discourse on the 'one-seed' one 647. Should it not be said: "a person who is a 'one-seed' one "fixed to one rebirth"? Yes. Is he not one-seed? Yes. If he is one-seed, then indeed it should be said: "A one-seed person is fixed to one rebirth." The discourse on the one-seed is concluded. 12. The Twelfth Chapter (123) 8. Discourse on Taking Life 648. Would a person accomplished in view intentionally take a life? Yes. Would a person accomplished in view intentionally take his mother's life...? ...his father's life...? ...an Arahant's life...? ...with malicious intent cause the Tathāgata's blood to flow...? ...or cause a schism in the Sangha? It should not be said so... Would a person accomplished in view intentionally take a life? Yes. Is a person accomplished in view disrespectful towards the Teacher? It should not be said so... ...towards the Dhamma...? ...towards the Sangha...? ...towards the training is he disrespectful? It should not be said so... Is not a person accomplished in view respectful towards the Teacher? Yes. If a person accomplished in view is respectful towards the Teacher, then indeed it should not be said: "A person accomplished in view would intentionally take a life." Is not a person accomplished in view respectful towards the Dhamma...? ...towards the Sangha...? ...towards the training? Yes. If a person accomplished in view is respectful towards the training, then indeed it should not be said: "A person accomplished in view would intentionally take a life." 649. Is a person accomplished in view disrespectful towards the Teacher? Yes. Would a person accomplished in view defecate, urinate, spit upon a Buddha-stupa or treat a Buddha-stupa disrespectfully? It should not be said so... Would a person accomplished in view intentionally take a life? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One – "Just as, monks, the great ocean, by its nature, does not overstep its shore; even so, monks, whatever training rule has been laid down by me for my disciples, my disciples do not transgress it even for the sake of life." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then it should not be said – "A person endowed with right view would intentionally deprive a living being of life." The discussion on depriving of life is concluded. 12. The Twelfth Chapter (124) 9. Discussion on Wretched Destinies For a person endowed with right view, are wretched destinies abandoned? Yes. Would a person endowed with right view be attached to forms of the lower realms? Yes. If a person endowed with right view would be attached to forms of the lower realms, then it should not be said – "For a person endowed with right view, wretched destinies are abandoned." For a person endowed with right view, are wretched destinies abandoned? Yes. Would a person endowed with right view be attached to sounds of the lower realms... smells... tastes... touches... would engage in sexual intercourse with a non-human female, an animal female, a Naga maiden, would accept a goat or a sheep, would accept a fowl or a pig, would accept an elephant, cow, horse, or mare... would accept a partridge, quail, peacock, or jungle fowl? Yes. If a person endowed with right view would accept a partridge, quail, peacock, or jungle fowl, then it should not be said – "For a person endowed with right view, wretched destinies are abandoned." For a person endowed with right view, wretched destinies are abandoned, would a person endowed with right view be attached to forms of the lower realms? Yes. For an Arahant, wretched destinies are abandoned, would an Arahant be attached to forms of the lower realms? That should not be said... For a person endowed with right view, wretched destinies are abandoned, would a person endowed with right view be attached to sounds of the lower realms... smells... tastes... touches... would accept a partridge, quail, peacock, or jungle fowl? Yes. For an Arahant, wretched destinies are abandoned, would an Arahant accept a partridge, quail, peacock, or jungle fowl? That should not be said... For an Arahant, wretched destinies are abandoned, and an Arahant would not be attached to forms of the lower realms? Yes. For a person endowed with right view, wretched destinies are abandoned, and a person endowed with right view would not be attached to forms of the lower realms? No. …thus it should be said… For an Arahant, bad destinations are abandoned. And an Arahant would not with sounds of the lower realms… …smells… …tastes… …tangibles… …with a non-human female, with an animal female, with a Nāga maiden, engage in sexual intercourse. He would not accept a goat or a ram. He would not accept a chicken or a pig. He would not accept an elephant, ox, horse, or mare… …He would not accept a partridge, quail, peacock, or francolin. Yes. For a person endowed with right view, bad destinations are abandoned. And a person endowed with right view would not accept a partridge, quail, peacock, or francolin. It should not be said thus… It should not be said: “For a person endowed with right view, bad destinations are abandoned.” Yes. Would a person endowed with right view be reborn in hell… …be reborn in the animal realm… …be reborn in the realm of hungry ghosts? It should not be said thus. Therefore, for a person endowed with right view, bad destinations are abandoned. The Discourse on Bad Destinations is finished. The Twelfth Chapter 10. The Discourse on the Seven-Times-More-to-Come It should not be said: “For a person with seven more existences, bad destinations are abandoned.” Yes. Would a person with seven more existences be reborn in hell, be reborn in the animal realm, be reborn in the realm of hungry ghosts? It should not be said thus. Therefore, for a person with seven more existences, bad destinations are abandoned. The Discourse on the Seven-Times-More-to-Come is finished. The Twelfth Chapter. Its summary: Restraint, and action, and non-restraint, all action with its result, sound is a result, the six sense-bases are a result, the person who is seven-times-more-to-come, the person who is destined to be seven-times-more-to-come, the family-to-family person, the person destined to be family-to-family, the one-seed person, the person destined to be one-seed, the person endowed with right view would intentionally deprive a living being of life, for the person endowed with right view, bad destinations are abandoned, and likewise Of the seventh-becoming one.