English
In establishing by sutta, "It does not exist," is the question of the proponent. There, the meaning is, "It does not exist," meaning these things do not exist. To one who does not want non-existence when there is the existence of aggregates and so on, "Yes," is the acknowledgment of the opponent, then the proponent cites a sutta to establish their non-existence. The second question is also from the opponent, the acknowledgment from the proponent, the sutta citation from the opponent. But that only establishes the existence of aggregates and so on, not their non-existence, so even if brought forth, it is as if it were not brought forth. Explanation of the discussion beginning with "past aggregate." 7. The Discussion of "Some Exist" 1. Explanation of the Discussion of "Some Past" and so on 299. Now, there is the discussion of "some exist." There, those who think "some past exists," like the Kassapikas; to break their view, "Does the past exist?" is the question of the proponent, "some exists" is the answer of the opponent. For this is the intention: "The not-yet-ripened-in-result exists, the ripened-in-result does not exist." "Is some ceased?" is the inquiry of the proponent. Its meaning is: if for you some past exists and some does not, in that case, some past is ceased, some past is not ceased, it remains just as it was. The same method applies to "gone" and so on. "Not-yet-ripened-in-result things, some," this is said to challenge those who want the existence of not-yet-ripened-in-results, since they too are past. Therefore, just as for them some past exists, is it thus that some not-yet-ripened-in-result things exist and some do not? "Ripened-in-result" is said to challenge those who want their non-existence. "Not-ripening" is said to challenge those that are indeterminate. Thus, based on these three categories, in all direct and reverse orders, acknowledgment and rejection should be understood. They are called having a diverse result, because the past has results that are partly matured, and partly unmatured. For the karma that generated rebirth, its result is also bhavaṅga and death. Therefore, from rebirth to death, that is called having a diverse result. This is said in reference to such a phenomenon. "They exist as about to ripen?" This question is for the proponent of one's own view. Just as it is said that a person who is a teacher of the Dhamma, even when sleeping, has many existing qualities, so the assertion is for the proponent of another's view, referring to existence in terms of conventional usage. "They exist as about to ripen?" In the second question, "Are they present?" The assertion is for the proponent of another's view, standing on the doctrine that "there is such a thing as the accumulation of karma, known as the non-destruction of karma." 2. Description of the "Some Exist in the Future" Discussion 300. In "Some exist in the future?" and so on, "Some exist" is said referring to arising phenomena. The rest is straightforward in meaning, because the method has been stated below in all cases. Description of the "Some Exist" Discussion. 8. Description of the Foundations of Mindfulness Discussion 301. Now, there is the discussion of the foundations of mindfulness. "There, monks, I will teach the arising and passing away of the four foundations of mindfulness" (SN 47.2). In the manner stated in the Mindfulness Foundations Samyutta, those who, having taken the body and other things as objects of mindfulness, hold the doctrine that "all things are foundations of mindfulness," just like the Andhakas nowadays. The Andhakas are the later-arisen schools of Pubbaseliyas, Aparaseliyas, Rājagiriyas, and Siddhatthikas. The question is for the proponent of one's own view, the assertion for the proponent of another's view, in order to distinguish their doctrines. There, since "they are established in these, therefore they are foundations. What is established? Mindfulness. Foundations of mindfulness are the foundations of mindfulness" in this sense, the objects of mindfulness are also foundations of mindfulness. "They are established, therefore they are foundations. What is established? Mindfulnesses. Mindfulnesses themselves are foundations, foundations of mindfulness" in this sense, mindfulnesses themselves are foundations of mindfulness. Therefore, both views are consistent by way of explanation. But those who Having abandoned this, they say absolutely, "All things are mindfulness exercises." With reference to them, the question is for the proponent of his own doctrine, the affirmation for the proponent of another's, according to the object. But for one who is devoted to "All things are mindfulness," the denial is his own, because of the presence or absence of mindfulness in all things. There, "leading to destruction," etc., are specifications of the path. For the one path leads to Nibbāna, which is the destruction of defilements, hence "leading to destruction." Going while awakening to the four truths, hence "leading to enlightenment." Going while diminishing the round, hence "leading to decrease." Thus, with these terms, he asks, "Are all your things such, is your one path of this kind?" "Without influxes, without bonds," etc., are stated for the purpose of questioning the supramundane state. "Recollection of the Buddha," etc., are stated in the manner of questioning the divisions. "The eye-base is a mindfulness exercise," etc., is stated in the manner of questioning the divisions of all things. There too, the denial is according to mindfulness, the affirmation according to the object. Thus, the meaning of all questions should be understood. The scriptural supports are indeed of obvious meaning. The explanation of the Mindfulness Exercises Discourse is finished. 9. The Explanation of the "Indeed it is" Discourse 304. Now, there is the "Indeed it is" Discourse. There, with reference to those whose doctrine is, "All things, even those differentiated by past, etc., exist in terms of form, etc.; the past does not exist in terms of future and present, or the future and present do not exist in terms of past, etc.; therefore, all this is thus existent, thus non-existent," just like the blind men of the types mentioned earlier; the question "Does the past exist?" is for the proponent of his own doctrine. The answer "Indeed it is, indeed it is not" is for the proponent of another's. There, "indeed" means "thus." Then the proponent of his own doctrine, asking, "If the past alone is thus existent, thus non-existent according to doctrine, in that case, is it the same existent, the same non-existent?" says "Is it the same existent, is it the same non-existent?" The other denies with reference to existence in that same nature, non-existence in that same nature. Asked a second time, he affirms with reference to existence in its own nature, non-existence in another's nature. After that... Is there an essence, or is there no essence? He asks if there is a state of being or a state of non-being. In this way, the meaning should be understood in all instances. In the end, although the opponent establishes a doctrine by saying, "Therefore, the past exists, and it does not exist," and "Therefore, form exists, and it does not exist," etc., because it is established unwisely, it is indeed not established. Explanation of the "Exists" Discussion. The Great Chapter is finished. 2. The Second Chapter 1. Explanation of "Infliction by Others" 307. Now, there is the discussion called "Infliction by Others." Therein, those who, claiming to be arahants, are conceited, thinking they have attained what they have not, or those who are deceitful, claiming to be arahants, seeing seminal emission, think, "Mārakāyika deities inflict impurity on the arahant," just as the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas do nowadays; regarding them, the question "Does the arahant exist?" is for one's own side, the affirmation for the other. Now, since seminal emission arises from lust, the inquiry "Does the arahant have lust?" is begun. All of that is clear in meaning. In the question "Do Mārakāyika deities do it themselves?" since seminal emission does not exist for those deities, nor do they take semen from others and inflict it, and the arahant has no semen at all, therefore, he rejects it with "No." In the question "Not themselves?" however, he affirms the doctrine that they create and inflict it. In the question "Through the pores?" seeing the absence of infliction through the pores like sesame oil, he rejects it. 308. "Handa hi" is a particle indicating agreement. The meaning is that they inflict it, having made an agreement, intending to cause doubt, thinking, "Am I an arahant, or not?" Asked "Does the arahant have doubt?" he rejects it, referring to the eight-based doubt. Asked a second time, he affirms it, referring to the absence of certainty regarding the names and clans of women and men. 309. "Does he have a basis for it?" Does that semen have a foundation like feces and urine? Is there non-knowledge? 312. "Skilled in the true Dhamma" means skilled only in one's own Dhamma of Arahatship. He speaks thus referring to one liberated by wisdom. "Skilled in another's Dhamma" means skilled in the eight attainments, which are other than the true Dhamma. He speaks thus referring to one liberated in both ways. The rest here should be understood according to the Pali itself. Explanation of the Talk on Receiving Gifts. 2-3-4. Explanation of the Talk on Non-knowledge, etc. 314. Now, there are three talks: Non-knowledge, Doubt, and Transmission by Others. There, those who hold the view that, "Because there is no arising of knowledge in an Arahant regarding the names and clans of women and men, etc., there is non-knowledge; because there is no settling down in that very thing, there is doubt; and because others transmit, declare, and explain those things to them,