English
Givers, proclaimers of Nibbāna in this very life – they said, "He is a proclaimer of Nibbāna in this very life." The king, having grasped the agreement from the very beginning, knowing that these monks were not other sectarians, gave them white cloths and had them ordained. All of them were sixty thousand. Then, having summoned other monks, he asked, "What does the Sammāsambuddha proclaim, venerable sir?" "He is a Vibhajjavādī, great king." When this was said, the king asked the elder, "Is the Sammāsambuddha a Vibhajjavādī, venerable sir?" "Yes, great king." Then the king, "Now the Sāsana is pure, venerable sir, let the Sangha perform the Uposatha," and having given protection, he entered the city. The united Sangha gathered and performed the Uposatha. In that gathering, there were six hundred thousand monks. In that assembly, Moggalliputtatissa Thera, dividing the topics that had arisen at that time, and those that would arise in the future, with the method given by the Teacher, just as it was established by the Tathāgata, bringing forth five hundred suttas in his own doctrine and five hundred in opposing doctrines, thus a thousand suttas, spoke this Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa, which destroys the doctrines of others and is a characteristic for the future. Then, having selected monks from the number of six hundred thousand, taking one thousand monks who were upholders of the Tipiṭaka, possessed of distinct analytical knowledge, just as Mahākassapa Thera and Yasa Thera recited the Dhamma and the Vinaya, so too, purifying the impurities of the Sāsana, he held the Third Council. There, while reciting the Abhidhamma, he included this treatise, as it was spoken, in the collection. Therefore, it was said – "That which, due to the nature of the topics, Of discourses such as those on individuals, Is the Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa, He briefly expounded. "Just as the Mātikā was established, Established in the abode of the gods, So was it divided by Moggalliputta, On the surface of the earth. "Now, since the order of explaining the meaning Has been reached, Therefore, I will describe it, Listen to that well." Thus ended. The Nidāna Story is finished. The Great Division 1. Discourse on Individuals 1. The Truly Real Standpoint 1. Explanation of the Direct and Reverse Order 1. "Is an individual found in the truly real, ultimate sense?" This is the question. "Yes" is the affirmation. But to whom is this question, and whose is this affirmation? It cannot be specified. For in this treatise, the Blessed One has established a framework in terms of the system, for the purpose of clarifying various views. That framework has been divided by the Elder in accordance with the method given by the Teacher. The Elder did not engage in argumentative discussions with all the disputants whose paths of argument are shown here. Even so, for the easy understanding of the meaning of those various statements, we will make an explanation of the meaning only after showing the division as: the question of the proponent, the question of the opponent, the affirmation of the proponent, the affirmation of the opponent. "Is an individual found in the truly real, ultimate sense?" This is the proponent's question. By that, it indicates that "those who hold the view that there is an individual, those who are individualists, should be asked thus." Who are the individualists? In the Dispensation, the Vajjiputtakas, and both within the community and outside, many other sectarians. There, "individual" means self, being, life. "Is found" means is obtained by approaching with wisdom, is known. "In the truly real, ultimate sense": here, "truly real" should not be taken as unreal, like illusions or mirages, but as the real state. "Ultimate" should not be taken as based on tradition, etc., but as the highest meaning. By both, the seventy-sevenfold division of phenomena in terms of aggregates, sense bases, elements, and faculties, which is shown later by "an individual is found in the truly real, ultimate sense, and form is found," etc. Just as that is found in the true sense of its own nature, so he asks whether your individual is found. The opponent affirms, "Yes." For the affirmation sometimes comes as "Yes, venerable sir," and sometimes the affirmation comes as "Yes." Here, however, "Indeed" has come. Here is the meaning: That which was stated by the Blessed One, "There exists a person practicing for their own benefit," that sutta has come. Since the Blessed One is truthful, not speaking with the intention to deceive, nor teaching the Dhamma based on hearsay, but declaring it after directly knowing and realizing it himself in the world with its devas, therefore, taking the view that "There exists a person practicing for their own benefit," as truly existing in the sense of ultimate reality, he acknowledges, "Indeed." Then, not giving such a deceitful, evasive person an opportunity, the proponent of his own view says, "That which is truly real," and so on. Here is the meaning: That division of seventy-seven kinds of Dhammas, beginning with form and so on, which was described earlier as "with conditions, without conditions, conditioned, unconditioned, eternal, non-eternal, with signs, without signs," is not to be taken in the sense of conventional truth, nor based on hearsay. But it is truly real because of its actual existence, and ultimately real because it is directly experienced by oneself. Referring to that, he says, "That which is truly real and ultimately real, is that person found in that which is truly real and ultimately real?" "Therefore" is a word indicating reason, therefore, the meaning here is, "Is that person found in that which is truly real and ultimately real?" This is what is said: "In the manner in which that which is truly real and ultimately real is found, whether by way of dissolution and so on, or by way of being with conditions and so on, is that person also found in that manner?" The opponent, understanding that this is not to be said, rejects it. For he, not wanting such a person, rejects it. Here is the word division: "Not indeed is this to be said," or even "Not indeed is it." In both cases, the meaning is, "This is not to be said." "Understand the refutation," is the statement of the proponent of his own view. Since your earlier statement that it is to be said, and your later statement that it is not to be said, and the latter does not agree with the former, therefore, you have incurred defeat. That defeat... It means, accept the fault, the offense. Having thus made known the censure, now making it clear by way of establishing it and applying and imposing it in direct and reverse order, he said, "If a person..." and so on. There, "If a person is found" means, if a person is found, if a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality. This, first of all, is the direct establishment, being the characteristic of applying and imposing censure from the perspective of establishing the opponent's position. "Then indeed..." and so on is the direct application, because the censure is applied to the direct position. There, "then" is a word of reason. "Indeed" is a word of conviction. "Re" is a word of address. This is what is said: "Then, indeed it should be said, 'Hey, good sir, for that reason, it should indeed be said.'" "Whatever you say there..." and so on is the direct imposition, because the censure is imposed on the direct position. The word "false" at the end of that should be brought before it as "this is yours." "This is your falsehood," this is the meaning here. And this very thing comes later in the text. "If, however, it should not be said..." and so on is the reverse establishment, being the characteristic of applying and imposing censure in reverse order, because the rejected position is established as "it should not be said thus." "No indeed..." and so on is the reverse application, because the censure is applied to the reverse position. Again, "Whatever you say there..." and so on is the reverse imposition, because the censure is imposed on the reverse position. Here too, the word "this" should be brought before the word "false" at the end. And later too, in such places, this is the method. Here, this is the condensed meaning from the beginning: If a person is found in the ultimate sense of reality, then indeed, sir, it should be said that that person is found. But whatever you say there, "It should be said in the first question 'he is found in the ultimate sense of reality,' but it should not be said in the second question 'therefore that person is found,'" this is your falsehood. Thus, first of all, the direct establishment... There are establishing, conveying, and imposing. Then, in the second question, it should not be said, "there he is found," nor should it be said in the first question. But what you say here, "it should be said in the first question, 'he is found in the sense of ultimate truth,' but it should not be said in the second question, 'there that person is found,'" this is false for you; thus, there are reverse establishing, conveying, and imposing. Thus, because this is said about the censure and the four conveyings and imposings in direct and reverse order, it is called the direct five beginning with "he is found." And here, although two censures were made, one by direct conveying and imposing, and one by reverse conveying and imposing, because the first censure was imposed in two ways, relying on the first statement, "know the censure," that there a person is found, this is only one censure, so this is the first censure. 2. Now, there is the method of the opposite. There, the question is for the opponent. Since he has taken up "there is a person practicing for his own benefit," not accepting "he is not found," he asks thus. The proponent, just as forms and other things are found, so he acknowledges that he is not to be found.