English
For the opponent, in the verse, "look upon the world as empty," the one who contemplates is a person, according to their view; therefore, he asks him thus. "Together with form" means together with the body of form. "Having become detached from that" is the meaning. Having acknowledged this in terms of the five aggregates, when asked again whether it is living, he rejects it out of fear of contradicting the suttas. "Without form" means having acknowledged this in terms of the four aggregates, when asked again whether it is another living being, he rejects it out of fear of contradicting the suttas. "Having gone inward" and "having gone out That is the definition of what was said below, "with form, without form." There, "abbhantaragato" means within form, remaining within the boundary of form without exiting from this or that. "Nikkhamitvā" means exceeding the boundary of form. It means not relying on form. 231. "Anatta" means devoid of self, life, or person. It means there is not even one phenomenon that is a person. Thus, the meaning of all suttas should be understood in the manner stated in the commentaries on the Agamas. Here, however, we will speak only of what is meant by implication. 237. The saying of the Blessed One, beginning with "a ghee pot," etc., is brought forth to show that "all teachings should not be taken literally in terms of meaning." Just as a pot made by taking gold is called a gold pot, but there is no such thing as a ghee pot made by taking ghee. But the pot in which ghee is placed is called a ghee pot, this is the meaning here. The same method applies to oil pots and the like. And just as Nibbana is permanent and lasting, there is no such thing as rice or gruel. But without making a distinction of time, it is said "permanent rice, lasting gruel" in terms of designation, this is the meaning here. In "There is a person who has entered upon the path for his own benefit," etc., just as phenomena such as form exist in terms of individual characteristics and general characteristics, so does a person not exist. But when there are phenomena such as form, there is a designation "such a name," "such a clan." Thus, by this worldly usage, by worldly convention, by worldly expression, there is a person, this is the meaning here. And this was said by the Blessed One: "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly expressions, worldly usages, worldly concepts" (D.N. 1.440). But phenomena such as form exist even without worldly convention, in terms of individual and general characteristics, this is the meaning here. But Buddhas have two kinds of speech: conventional speech and ultimate speech. There, "being," "person," etc. Thus, the conventional discourse is named, "Evo, Brahmā," and so on. The ultimate discourse is named, "Impermanent, suffering, not-self, aggregates, elements, sense bases, mindfulness foundations, right efforts," and so on. There, one who, by conventional teaching, can know, penetrate, and attain release, grasping the victory of arahantship, when told "a being," or...or "Brahmā," to that one, the Blessed One speaks from the beginning, "a being," or "a person," or "an individual," or "a deva," or "a Brahmā." One who, by ultimate teaching, can know, penetrate, and attain release, grasping the victory of arahantship, hearing just one of "impermanent," or "suffering," and so on, to that one, He speaks one of "impermanent," and so on. Thus, to a being who understands by conventional discourse, He does not first speak the ultimate discourse. But having taught by conventional discourse, afterward, He speaks the ultimate discourse. Even to a being who understands by ultimate discourse, He does not first speak the conventional discourse. But having taught by ultimate discourse, afterward, He speaks the conventional discourse. By nature, however, to one who speaks the ultimate discourse from the very beginning, the teaching is harsh in manner. Therefore, Buddhas first speak the conventional discourse, and afterward, they speak the ultimate discourse. Even speaking the conventional discourse, they speak the truth, the reality, without falsehood. Even speaking the ultimate discourse, they speak the truth, the reality, without falsehood. For indeed – "Two truths the Sambuddha declared, the best of speakers; Conventional and ultimate, a third is not found." There – "A conventional term is true, for the sake of worldly convention; An ultimate term is true, the actual characteristic of phenomena." Another way: two are the Blessed One's teachings, the ultimate teaching based on aggregates, and so on, and the conventional teaching based on pots of ghee, and so on. For the Blessed One does not overstep convention. Therefore, clinging should not be made to the mere statement, "there is a person." For the Teacher – "Without transgressing convention, the ultimate is revealed." One should not overreach convention, Therefore, another wise person, Revealing the ultimate meaning, Should not overreach convention. The rest is straightforward everywhere. The Discussion of Individuals is finished. 2. The Discussion of Decline 1. Description of Decline with Valid Arguments 239. Now begins the discussion of decline. Decline-prone states and non-decline-prone states, "These two things, monks, lead to the decline of a trainee monk" (A.N. 2.185), "These five things, monks, lead to the decline of a monk liberated by time" (A.N. 5.149), Relying on such suttas, The Vajjiputtakas by consensus, The Sarvāstivādins, And some Mahāsaṅghikas, Desire decline even for an Arahant. Therefore, whether they or others, Whose view this is, To break their view, The question is, "Does an Arahant decline from Arahantship?" to one of our own school. Therein, "decline" has two meanings: Decline from attainment and decline from non-attainment. Therein, "The venerable Godhika declined a second time from that temporary liberation of mind" (S.N. 1.159), This is called decline from attainment. "Lest the goal of the ascetic life decline for you, who seek the ascetic life" (M.N. 1.416-418), This is decline from non-attainment. Among these, here, decline from attainment is intended. Indeed, intending that, the opponent agrees to the question. However, in our own school, this decline from attainment, Is only considered possible from worldly attainments, Not from the fruits of the ascetic life such as Arahantship. Even in the opponent's school, They do not desire it in all fruits of the ascetic life, In all existences, At all times, And for all individuals. But that is merely their view, Therefore, to break all that net of views, The teaching is expanded again with the method beginning with "everywhere." Therein, since the opponent, Does not desire decline for an Arahant, Who, having gradually declined, stands in the fruit of Stream-entry, But only desires it for one standing in the higher fruits. And since he does not desire it for one standing in the realms of form and formlessness, But for those who are prone to decline, such as those delighting in actions. He wants to remain in the realm of desire, Therefore, when asked "everywhere," he denies it. When asked again firmly, He acknowledges it with reference to the realm of desire. Indeed, in all the realm of desire, There are qualities of desire that cause decline, Therefore, he declines there, such is his view. In the third question, "decline" asks about qualities that cause decline. There, since decline means qualities such as delighting in activity, Or especially sensual desire and ill will, And these are not in the realms of form and formlessness, Therefore, the opponent's denial is "no, indeed." "Always" is a question of time. There, in the first question, He denies it because there is no decline at the time of wise attention. In the second, acknowledging unwise attention, He acknowledges that there is always decline, Whether at night or during the day. In the third, when there is association with qualities that cause decline, Decline occurs for only a moment, Therefore, he denies that there is decline, Because there is no decline before for one not declined, Nor after for one who has declined. Regarding the question "all arahants," In the first, he denies it with reference to those of keen faculties. In the second, he acknowledges it with reference to those of dull faculties. In the third, only those of keen faculties are intended. Indeed, his view is that there is no decline for all of them. In the example of the wealthy man, The first question is for the opponent, the second for his own side. There, this is the intention: What you ask me, "Does an arahant declining from arahantship decline by the four fruits?" There, I ask you in return, "Does a wealthy man acting as a wealthy man with four hundred thousand, When he declines by one hundred thousand, does the wealthy man decline from wealth?" Then, when his own side says "yes" acknowledging decline in one aspect, He asks if he declines from all his possessions. Likewise, because of non-decline, his own side says "no, indeed," And then he asks him the second suitable question with an arisen view, "Just so, does an arahant also decline, but not by the four fruits?" The opponent, not seeing the necessity due to the impossibility for the wealthy man, Having acknowledged that, being asked about the possibility of falling away from arahantship with its four fruits, he rejects it, standing on his view, taking the meaning of the statement "destined for complete enlightenment" (A.N. 3.87) unwisely, with the idea that there is no falling away from the fruit of stream-entry. But that is merely his view. Thus ends the section on the art of debate. 2. Description of Falling Away from the Noble Individuals 240. Now begins the discussion of the noble individuals. Here, since some desire falling away only from arahantship, some even from non-returning, some even from once-returning.