English
20. The Twentieth Chapter (194) 1. Discourse on Unintentional Acts 857. Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, is one guilty of an immediate offense? Yes. Having unintentionally killed a living being, is one guilty of taking life? It should not be said so... (etc.)... Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, is one guilty of an immediate offense? Yes. Having unintentionally taken what is not given... (etc.)... having spoken falsely, is one a liar? It should not be said so... (etc.). Having unintentionally killed a living being, is one not guilty of taking life? Yes. Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, is one not guilty of an immediate offense? It should not be said so... (etc.)... Having unintentionally taken what is not given... (etc.)... having spoken falsely, is one not a liar? Yes. Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, is one not guilty of an immediate offense? It should not be said so... (etc.). 858. Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, is one guilty of an immediate offense? Yes. "Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, one is guilty of an immediate offense" – is there such a Suttanta? No, there is not. "Having intentionally deprived a mother of life, one is guilty of an immediate offense" – is there such a Suttanta? Yes. If there is a Suttanta that says: "Having intentionally deprived a mother of life, one is guilty of an immediate offense", then it should not be said: "Having unintentionally deprived a mother of life, one is guilty of an immediate offense". 859. Should it not be said: "A mother-killer is guilty of an immediate offense"? Yes. But was the mother not deprived of life? Yes. If the mother was deprived of life, then it should be said: "A mother-killer is guilty of an immediate offense". Should it not be said: "A father-killer is guilty of an immediate offense"? Yes. But was the father not deprived of life? Yes. If the father was deprived of life, then it should be said: "A father-killer is guilty of an immediate offense". Should it not be said: "An Arahant-killer is guilty of an immediate offense"? Yes. But was the Arahant not deprived of life? Yes. If the Arahant was deprived of life, then it should be said: "An Arahant-killer is guilty of an immediate offense". Should it not be said: "One who sheds blood is guilty of an immediate offense"? Yes. Indeed. Was the Tathāgata's blood shed? Indeed. If the Tathāgata's blood was shed, then it should be said: "One who sheds blood is of immediate retribution." 860. Is one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha of immediate retribution? Indeed. Are all who cause a schism in the Saṅgha of immediate retribution? It should not be said thus... (etc.) ...Are all who cause a schism in the Saṅgha of immediate retribution? Indeed. Is one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha with a perception of Dhamma of immediate retribution? It should not be said thus... (etc.) ... 861. Is one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha with a perception of Dhamma of immediate retribution? Indeed. Was it not said by the Blessed One: "There is, Upāli, one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha who is bound for the lower realms, bound for hell, remains for an eon, is incurable; there is, Upāli, one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha who is not bound for the lower realms, not bound for hell, does not remain for an eon, is not incurable"? Is there such a Suttanta? Indeed. Then it should not be said: "One who causes a schism in the Saṅgha with a perception of Dhamma is of immediate retribution." 862. Should it not be said: "One who causes a schism in the Saṅgha with a perception of Dhamma is of immediate retribution"? Indeed. Was it not said by the Blessed One: "Bound for the lower realms, bound for hell, For an eon remains one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha; Delighting in factions, standing in unrighteousness, He destroys security from bondage; Having split the united Saṅgha, He burns in hell for an eon." Is there such a Suttanta? Indeed. Then one who causes a schism in the Saṅgha is of immediate retribution. The discussion on unintentional acts is concluded. 20. The Twentieth Chapter (195) 2. Discussion on Knowledge 863. Is there no knowledge for an ordinary person? Indeed. Is there no wisdom, understanding, investigation, thorough investigation, investigation of phenomena, discernment, observation, or close observation for an ordinary person? It should not be said thus... (etc.) ...Is there not wisdom, understanding, investigation... (etc.) ...close observation for an ordinary person? Indeed. If there is wisdom, understanding, investigation... (etc.) ...close observation for an ordinary person, then it should not be said: "There is no knowledge for an ordinary person." 864. Is there no knowledge for an ordinary person? Indeed. Can an ordinary person attain the first jhāna? Indeed. If an ordinary person attains the first jhāna... Indeed, it should not be said: "There is no knowledge for an ordinary person." An ordinary person might attain the second jhāna... ...the third jhāna... ...the fourth jhāna... ...the sphere of infinite space... ...the sphere of infinite consciousness... ...the sphere of nothingness... ...the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. An ordinary person might give a gift... ...give robes... ...give almsfood... ...give lodgings... ...give requisites for the sick, medicine, and supplies? Yes. If an ordinary person gives requisites for the sick, medicine, and supplies, then it should not be said: "There is no knowledge for an ordinary person." 865. Does an ordinary person have knowledge? Yes. Does an ordinary person, with that knowledge, fully understand suffering, abandon its origin, realize its cessation, and develop the path? It should not be said so... The discourse on knowledge is concluded. 20. The Twentieth Chapter (196) 3. Discourse on Hell-Keepers 866. Are there no hell-keepers in the hells? Yes. Are there no tormentors in the hells? It should not be said so... Are there tormentors in the hells? Yes. Are there hell-keepers in the hells? It should not be said so... Are there tormentors among humans, and are there executioners? Yes. Are there tormentors in the hells, and are there executioners? It should not be said so... Are there tormentors in the hells, but no executioners? Yes. Are there tormentors among humans, but no executioners? It should not be said so... 867. Are there hell-keepers in the hells? Yes. But has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Neither Vessabhū nor the king of the departed, Soma, Yama, or Vessavaṇa, the kings; Their own deeds strike them there, those driven from here, gone to the other world." Is there such a discourse? Yes. Then there are no hell-keepers in the hells. 868. Are there no hell-keepers in the hells? Yes. But has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Then, monks, the hell-keepers bind him with a five-fold binding..." They inflict a torment called 'ana' – they drive a red-hot iron stake into one hand, they drive a red-hot iron stake into the second hand, they drive a red-hot iron stake into one foot, they drive a red-hot iron stake into the second foot, they drive a red-hot iron stake into the middle of the chest; he there experiences painful, sharp, bitter feelings; and he does not die until that evil deed is exhausted! Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then there are wardens in hell. Are there no wardens in hell? Yes. But has it not been said by the Blessed One – "Monks, the wardens of hell, having laid him down, chop him with axes... ...Monks, the wardens of hell, having placed him head down and feet up, chop him with adzes... ...Monks, the wardens of hell, having yoked him to a chariot, drive him back and forth on burning, blazing, glowing ground... ...Monks, the wardens of hell, make him climb up and down a great mountain of burning, blazing, glowing coals... ...Monks, the wardens of hell, taking him head down and feet up, throw him into a red-hot iron pot, burning, blazing, glowing. He boils there, bubbling with foam; boiling there, bubbling with foam, he sometimes goes up, sometimes goes down, sometimes goes sideways. He there experiences painful, sharp, bitter feelings, and he does not die until that evil deed is exhausted. Monks, the wardens of hell throw him into the Great Hell! And that, monks, that Great Hell – Four-cornered, with four gates, divided into measured parts; surrounded by an iron wall, enclosed by iron. Its ground is made of iron, burning, endowed with fire; for a hundred leagues all around, it stands pervading all. Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Then there are hell-keepers in the hells. The discussion on hell-keepers is concluded. 20. The Twentieth Chapter (197) 4. Discussion on Animals 869. Are there animals among the devas? Yes. Are there devas among the animals? It should not be said thus... Are there animals among the devas? Yes. Is the deva-world an animal realm? It should not be said thus... Are there animals among the devas? Yes. Are there there insects, moths, mosquitoes, flies, snakes, scorpions, centipedes, earthworms? It should not be said thus... 870. Are there no animals among the devas? Yes. But isn't there there the elephant-king named Erāvaṇa, a divine vehicle yoked with a thousand? Yes. If there is there the elephant-king named Erāvaṇa, a divine vehicle yoked with a thousand, then indeed it should be said – "There are animals among the devas." 871. Are there animals among the devas? Yes. Are there there elephant-keepers, horse-keepers, fodder-providers, torturers, cooks? It should not be said thus. Then there are no animals among the devas. The discussion on animals is concluded. 20. The Twentieth Chapter (198) 5. Discussion on the Path 872. Is the path five-factored? Yes. But wasn't the path declared by the Blessed One to be eight-factored, namely – right view... right concentration? Yes. If the path was declared by the Blessed One to be eight-factored, namely – right view...