English
But all do not desire it for a stream-enterer. Those who desire falling away for those who, having fallen from arahantship, stand in the state of non-returning or once-returning, but not for other non-returners or once-returners. But even those do not desire it in any way for a stream-enterer, therefore the question is asked in the form of an ellipsis. Here, the acknowledgment and rejection should be understood according to their views. For in the question, "Does a non-returner fall away from the fruit of non-returning?" the rejection is according to those who do not desire falling away for non-returners. The acknowledgment is according to those who desire falling away for natural non-returners or non-returners who have fallen from arahantship and stand there. This is the method here. According to that, all the ellipses should be understood in meaning. 241. Here, what is said, "Immediately after the fruit of stream-entry, he realizes arahantship," that is said with reference to the attainment of arahantship by one who has fallen away and strives again. The other rejects it because of the absence of arahantship immediately after the fruit of stream-entry. 242. Thereafter, to question in terms of "Falling away occurs due to the weakness of the abandonment of defilements, or due to the insufficiency of the development of the path, etc., or due to the non-seeing of the truths," etc., it is said, "Whose defilements are more abandoned?" etc. All that is of obvious intention. But the meaning of the suttas should be understood in the way stated in the commentaries. 262. An arahant freed by time, "He declines" means that the one with dull faculties is liberated in due time, and the one with sharp faculties is liberated out of due time—this is their doctrine. But in one's own school, one who has attained mastery and gained jhāna is liberated in due time, and one who has attained mastery and gained jhāna, and all noble individuals, are liberated out of due time—this is the conclusion. He, however, taking that own doctrine, says, "The one liberated in due time declines, the other does not decline." The rest here is of obvious meaning. Description of Decline by Comparison with Noble Individuals. 3. Description of Decline by Scriptural Proof 265. Now, there is scriptural proof. There, "high and low" means differing in excellence and inferiority, both high and low. "Practice" means path. "Declared by the ascetic" means illuminated by the Buddha ascetic. For the practice that is easy and leads to swift understanding is high. The practice that is difficult and leads to slow understanding is low. The other two are high in one aspect, low in another. Or the one mentioned first is high, the other three are low. By that high and low practice, they do not go beyond twice, meaning they do not go to Nibbāna twice by one path. Why? Because by the path by which those defilements have been abandoned, they are not to be abandoned again. By this, he shows the absence of the nature of decline. "This is not a single thread that is freed" means that this going beyond is not fit to be touched only once. Why? Because all defilements have not been abandoned by one path. By this, he shows the absence of Arahantship by one path alone. "Is there something to be cut off for what has been cut?" he asks, meaning is there something to be cut off again from the round of defilements that has been cut off? The other, rejecting it with reference to the one with sharp faculties, and then being asked again, acknowledges it with reference to the one with dull faculties. The proponent of his own view, bringing forward a Sutta, shows the non-existence. There, "flood and snare" means both the flood of defilements and the snare of defilements. 266."Repetition of what has been done" means the repeated cultivation of the path that has been developed. Here too, the rejection and acknowledgement should be understood in the same way as before. 267."Conduce to decline" means that in the Sutta brought forward by the opponent, the five things, if not attained, certainly And conduce to the decline of mundane attainments. But he considers the decline of the fruit of arahantship. Therefore, he says that an arahant has delight in deeds. The other, rejecting it with reference to one who is freed out of season, acknowledges it with reference to the other. Or, rejecting that which proceeds under the influence of sensual lust, he acknowledges that which proceeds otherwise. But asked about the existence of passion and so on, he cannot acknowledge it. 268. "By what is beset?" means by what being beset, connected, or overwhelmed. In the question about latent tendencies, acknowledgements and rejections should be understood only in terms of keen or dull faculties. He acknowledges with a mere general term, "wholesome latent tendency." "Passion increases" he says with reference to that which has been abandoned by cultivation. The same method applies to hatred and delusion that follow. But because the view of individuality and so on are abandoned by vision, he does not accept increase. The rest is everywhere of obvious meaning. Suttasādhanā. The Discourse on Decline is finished. 3. Discourse on the Holy Life 1. Exposition of the Discourse on the Pure Holy Life 269. Now, there is the discourse on the holy life. There are two ways of living the holy life: the path of cultivation and the going forth. The going forth does not exist in all the heavens. The path of cultivation is not prohibited in the remaining beings except for the unconscious beings. There, those who, beginning with the gods who control the creations of others, do not accept even the path of cultivation in the gods above them, just as the Sammatiya school, with reference to them, the question "Is there not in the heavens?" is for the proponent of his own doctrine. "Monks, in three ways, the people of Jambudīpa surpass the people of Uttarakuru and the gods of the Thirty-three. What are the three? They are brave, mindful, and here is the living of the holy life" (A. N. 9.21). Relying on this sutta, the affirmation "There is not in the heavens" of both ways of living the holy life is in terms of arising and attainment for the proponent of the other doctrine. Again, the question "Are all the gods dull?" is for the proponent of his own doctrine, only because of the obstructive qualities of both ways of living the holy life. There, "hand-signaling" means like mutes, with hands... Who proclaim the cessation of suffering. "Are there gods beyond?" is the question of the opponent; affirmation regarding the cultivation of the path is the position of our side. Without considering the intention of the affirmation, the opponent's inquiry is based on ordination. 270. To the question, "Where is there no ordination?" the denial, referring to the attainment of the path by householders and some gods, is by the same person. When asked again, the affirmation, referring to those living in border regions and the non-percipient beings, is by the same person. The same method applies to questions such as "Who ordains?" Again, to the question "Are there gods?" the affirmation, referring to the cultivation of the path, is by our side, and when "In all gods?" is said, the denial, referring to the non-percipient beings, is by the same person. 271. In the two questions about "Humans," the affirmation refers to those in Jambudīpa. The denial should be understood as referring to those living in border regions. "There are gods where there are," meaning, "Are there such gods, or is there such a place, where there are?" is the explanation of our side, through the method of distinguishing seven abodes. By this method, all alternating questions should be understood. 272. In the sutta inquiry, "Where is the fruition?" is the question of our side, asking where the fruition of an Anāgāmī or Arahant arises. "There itself" means in the Pure Abodes. "Handa hi" is a particle in the sense of reason. This is what is said: since an Anāgāmī individual realizes the fruition there in the Pure Abodes through the path cultivated here in this world, and does not cultivate another path there, therefore, there is no living of the holy life among the gods. 2. Description of the Comparison of the Holy Life 273. Now, to show that if the realization of fruition could occur elsewhere through a path cultivated elsewhere, it could also happen for Sotāpannas and others, the comparative questioning of Anāgāmīs and others is by our side. Therein, the affirmation is for the Anāgāmī's realization of fruition, and the denial is for the realization of fruition by the others, by the opponent. For the path cultivated here makes the Anāgāmī one who is "finished with living here." Having cultivated the Anāgāmī path here, he is "spontaneously born, and attains final Nibbāna there." "Without further cultivation of the path, he realizes the fruit of Arahantship by mere arising," such is his doctrine. But Stream-enterers and Once-returners, having cultivated the path there, are called "those who arise there," so their coming here simply does not exist. Thus, when asked about the fruit-realization of a Non-returner, he affirms it. He denies it for the others. To the question, "Is the path cultivated there by a Non-returner?" he denies it with the doctrine, "There is no cultivation of the path there for a Non-returner." To the question, "Is the path cultivated, but the defilements not abandoned?" the affirmation is by the proponent of his own doctrine, with reference to the path of the Form realm, the denial by the other. For by the path of the Form realm, he is born as one who attains final cessation in this life. To the question, "Has the Non-returner done what was to be done?" he affirms it, referring to the fact that his duty is done by the very arising of one who is "one who attains final Nibbāna there,"