English
come face-to-face? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One – "These four, monks, are extremely far apart! Which four? The sky, monks, and the earth – this is the first extremely far apart... etc. ... therefore, the Dhamma of the good is far from the wicked." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, it should not be said – "wholesome and unwholesome... etc. ... come face-to-face." Does one who is face-to-face abandon fetters? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One – "He, with his mind thus concentrated... etc. ... for the knowledge of the destruction of the taints..." the mind inclines.” Is there such a discourse? Yes, there is. Then it should not be said: “Being face-to-face, one abandons the fetter.” 670. Should it not be said: “Being face-to-face, one abandons the fetter”? Yes, it should not. But has it not been said by the Blessed One: “For him who thus knows, thus sees, the mind is liberated from the sensual defilement… the mind is liberated from the defilement of ignorance”? Is there such a discourse? Yes, there is. Then, being face-to-face, one abandons the fetter. The discourse on being face-to-face is concluded. 13. The Thirteenth Chapter (132) 7. The discourse on one who has attained absorption enjoying it 671. One who has attained absorption enjoys it, is attached to jhana, and jhana is the object? Yes, it is. Is that jhana the object of that jhana? It should not be said thus… Is that jhana the object of that jhana? Yes, it is. By that contact, does one touch that contact? By that feeling, does one feel that feeling? By that perception, does one perceive that perception? By that volition, does one intend that volition? By that consciousness, does one cognize that consciousness? By that initial application, does one apply that initial application? By that sustained application, does one sustain that sustained application? By that joy, does one delight in that joy? By that mindfulness, does one remember that mindfulness? By that wisdom, does one understand that wisdom? It should not be said thus… Attachment to jhana is conjoined with consciousness, and jhana is conjoined with consciousness? Yes, it is. Is there a combination of two contacts… of two consciousnesses? It should not be said thus… Attachment to jhana is unwholesome, and jhana is wholesome? Yes, it is. Do wholesome and unwholesome states, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, with dark and bright counterparts, come to be face-to-face? It should not be said thus… 672. Do wholesome and unwholesome states, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, with dark and bright counterparts, come to be face-to-face? Yes, they do. But has it not been said by the Blessed One: “There are these four, monks, that are very, very far apart! Which are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth – this is the first very, very far apart… Therefore, for the mindful… ...far from the ignoble." Is there such a Suttanta? Yes. Therefore, it should not be said: "Wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and blameless, inferior and superior, dark and bright with their counterparts, states come into direct presence." 673. Should it not be said: "One who has attained (absorption) tastes it, delight in jhana is the object of jhana"? Yes. But wasn't it said by the Blessed One: "Here, monks, a monk, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, enters and dwells in the first jhana. He tastes it, delights in it, and is satisfied by it; with the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought... (and so on)... enters and dwells in the second jhana... (and so on)... the third jhana... (and so on)... the fourth jhana. He tastes it, delights in it, and is satisfied by it"? Is there such a Suttanta? Yes. Therefore, one who has attained (absorption) tastes it, delight in jhana is the object of jhana. The discourse on "One who has attained (absorption) tastes it" is concluded. 13. The Thirteenth Chapter (133) 8. Discourse on "Craving for the unpleasant" 674. Is there craving for the unpleasant? Yes. Do beings delight in suffering, are there some who long for, desire, seek, search for, investigate suffering, and cling to suffering? It should not be said thus... (and so on)... But do not beings delight in pleasure, are there some who long for, desire, seek, search for, investigate pleasure, and cling to pleasure? Yes. If beings delight in pleasure, if there are some who long for, desire, seek, search for, investigate pleasure, and cling to pleasure, then indeed it should not be said: "There is craving for the unpleasant." Is there craving for the unpleasant? Yes. Does the latent tendency of lust lie latent in unpleasant feeling, and the latent tendency of aversion lie latent in pleasant feeling? It should not be said thus... (and so on)... But does not the latent tendency of lust lie latent in pleasant feeling, and the latent tendency of aversion lie latent in unpleasant feeling? Yes. If the latent tendency of lust lies latent in pleasant feeling, and the latent tendency of aversion lie latent in unpleasant feeling, then indeed it should not be said: – "There is attachment to the unpleasant." 675. Should it not be said: "There is attachment to the unpleasant"? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "He, having attained such agreement and disagreement, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he delights in that feeling, he welcomes it, he remains attached to it"? Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then there is attachment to the unpleasant. The discussion on attachment to the unpleasant is finished. 13. Thirteenth Chapter (134) 9. Discussion on whether craving for phenomena is indeterminate 676. Is craving for phenomena indeterminate? Yes. Is it indeterminate as a result, indeterminate as a functional act, is it form, Nibbāna, the eye-base... (and so on) ...the touch-base? It should not be said thus... (and so on) .... Is craving for phenomena indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for forms indeterminate? It should not be said thus... (and so on) ...is craving for phenomena indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for sounds... (and so on) ...craving for smells... (and so on) ...craving for tastes... (and so on) ...is craving for touches indeterminate? It should not be said thus... (and so on) .... Is craving for forms unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for phenomena unwholesome? It should not be said thus... (and so on) ...is craving for sounds... (and so on) ...is craving for touches unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for phenomena unwholesome? It should not be said thus... (and so on) .... 677. Is craving for phenomena indeterminate? Yes. Has not craving been declared by the Blessed One to be unwholesome? Yes. If craving has been declared by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, then indeed it should not be said: "Craving for phenomena is indeterminate." Is craving for phenomena indeterminate? Yes. Has not greed been declared by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, and is craving for phenomena greed? Yes. If greed has been declared by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, and craving for phenomena is greed, then indeed it should not be said: "Craving for phenomena is indeterminate." 678. Is craving for phenomena, which is greed, indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for forms, which is greed, indeterminate? It should not be said thus... (and so on) ...is craving for phenomena, which is greed, indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for sounds... (and so on) ...is craving for touches, which is greed, indeterminate? It should not be said thus... (and so on) .... Is craving for forms, which is greed, unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for phenomena, which is greed, Is it unwholesome? It should not be said thus... Is craving for sounds... craving for tangibles, greed, unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects, greed, unwholesome? It should not be said thus... 679. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "This craving, which brings about re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, finding delight here and there, namely: craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming!"? Is there such a Sutta passage? Yes. Therefore, it should not be said: "Craving for mental objects is indeterminate." 680. Should it not be said: "Craving for mental objects is indeterminate"? Yes. Is that not craving for mental objects? Yes. If that is craving for mental objects, then indeed it should be said: "Craving for mental objects is indeterminate." The discussion on craving for mental objects being indeterminate is concluded. 13. Thirteenth Chapter (135) 10. The discussion on craving for mental objects not being the origin of suffering 681. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for forms not the origin of suffering? It should not be said thus... Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for sounds... craving for odors... craving for tastes... craving for tangibles not the origin of suffering? It should not be said thus... Is craving for forms the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects the origin of suffering? It should not be said thus... Is craving for sounds... craving for odors... craving for tastes... craving for tangibles the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects the origin of suffering? It should not be said thus... 682. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Has not craving been declared by the Blessed One as the origin of suffering? Yes. If craving has been declared by the Blessed One as the origin of suffering, then indeed it should not be said: "Craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering." Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Has not greed been declared by the Blessed One as the origin of suffering, and is craving for mental objects greed? Yes.