English
Otherwise, there would be inconsistency. For the transcendental is known even by mundane knowledge. Thus, all should be understood according to what is appropriate. "All of them cultivate the path," in the questions, he rejects regarding those who do not attain the path. Regarding those who attain, he admits. 351. "Of golden color," that is, made of gold. This is the opponent's example. "Of castor-oil-plant color," that is, made of castor-oil-plant. This is the proponent's example. This is also a view, for one who speaks of the worldly. It is now the view of some blind ones. The rest here is straightforward. Explanation of the Discussion on Convention. 11. Explanation of the Discussion on Cessation 353. Now, there is the discussion called Cessation. There, those who, like the Mahīsāsakas and the Andhakas nowadays, combine both non-reflective cessation and reflective cessation and hold them as the truth of cessation; regarding them, the question of two cessations is for the proponent, the affirmation is for the opponent. To the question, "Are there two cessations of suffering?" Since he does not accept two truths of suffering, he rejects it. Since he accepts that suffering ceases in two ways, he affirms it. To the question, "Are there two truths of cessation?" Not accepting it in terms of the cessation of two truths of suffering, he rejects it. He affirms it because suffering ceases in two ways. The same method applies to questions like "Are there two refuges?" To the questions beginning with "Are there two Nibbānas?" Not seeing the high and low, etc., he rejects it. Those formations that are not ceased by reflective cessation, that is, by supramundane knowledge, or are not ceased due to their pure nature, or due to not arising from the basis of instruction, questioning, etc., are called non-reflectively ceased. They cease by reflective cessation. They are made to attain a state of non-arising by supramundane knowledge. Now, the question, "Are formations non-reflectively ceased?" is for the opponent. There, since what is broken is not broken again, or since those non-reflectively ceased cease in that way when the Noble Path arises, the proponent affirms complete destruction. The rest here is straightforward. Explanation of the Discussion on Cessation. The Second Chapter. 3. The Third Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discussion on Strength 354. Now, there is the discussion called Strength. There, for those who, in the Anuruddha Saṃyutta, [hold that] the ten suttas beginning with "Having developed and cultivated these four foundations of mindfulness, I understand what is possible as possible, and what is impossible as impossible, as it actually is," Not taking the meaning, a doctrine: "The Tathāgata's power is shared with disciples," like the blind these days. Referring to them, questions for the proponent, standing in doctrine, assertions for the opponent. And the Tathāgata's power, is it shared by disciples, or unshared, or both shared and unshared? Therein, knowledge of the destruction of taints is shared. Knowledge of the superiority of faculties is unshared. The rest is both shared and unshared. For disciples know possibilities and impossibilities partially, Tathāgatas know them completely. Thus, they are shared in outline, but not in detail. But this one says all are shared without distinction. To distinguish him from that, the re-application: "Is the Tathāgata's power the disciple's power?" is begun. Therein, in the first question, he rejects it, referring to the complete scope in detail. In the second question, he acknowledges it, in outline, in terms of knowing just possibilities and impossibilities. In questions beginning with "That same," he rejects it, due to the lack of making it different in every way, due to the absence. And former practice and former conduct are the same in meaning, likewise, the declaration of the Dhamma and the teaching of the Dhamma. In the question of the superiority of faculties, he acknowledges it in the disciple's sphere, referring to sharedness in part. 355. Now, because a disciple knows possibilities and impossibilities in outline, therefore, to reveal the disciple's knowing in that way, and to establish their sharedness with disciples by the mere commonality of that knowing, the opponent's questions are: "Does the disciple know possibilities and impossibilities?" etc. Therein, knowledge of the superiority of faculties, as one of the six unshared knowledges, is not taken. Or, by the destruction of taints, whatever distinction should be stated regarding the disciple's destruction of taints in relation to the Tathāgata's destruction of taints, that does not exist. Or, in the phrase "by liberation, liberation," the same method applies. The rest here is straightforward in meaning. 356. Now, what was conceded by the proponent, "Knowledge in the destruction of taints is shared," comparing that with the rest, To ask about commonality, questions like "the destruction of the āsavas?" are the opponent's questions. In answering them, the proponent concedes that knowledge is common due to the absence of distinction in the destruction of āsavas. The commonality is rejected in the others due to the absence of distinction. Again, the opponent's uncommon question is comparing the possible and impossible etc. with the destruction of āsavas. There, the proponent rejects the knowledge of the destruction of āsavas, but affirms the rest. Then, the opponent's uncommon question is comparing it with the superiority of faculties. That is shown concisely. Even so, the proponent affirms the superiority of faculties, but rejects the rest. Then, the opponent's common question is comparing the superiority of faculties with the possible and impossible etc. That too is shown concisely. There, the superiority of faculties is rejected. But the rest is affirmed by the proponent. Explanation of the section on strengths. 2. Explanation of the Section on What is Noble 357. Now, there is the section on what is noble. There, those whose view is "Not only is the knowledge of the destruction of āsavas noble, but the preceding nine strengths are also noble," just like the Andhakas nowadays; with them in mind, the question "is it noble?" is the proponent's, the affirmation is the opponent's. Again, if that is noble, it must be one of the path etc.; the question in terms of the path etc. is the proponent's, the rejection is the opponent's. Again, the question in terms of emptiness as object etc. is the proponent's. There are two kinds of emptiness – emptiness of beings and emptiness of formations. Emptiness of beings means the five aggregates are empty of a being imagined by views. Emptiness of formations means Nibbāna is empty, secluded, and free from all formations. There, the opponent rejects it with reference to Nibbāna as object, and affirms it with reference to formations as object. When asked "does he attend to it?", he rejects it with reference to Nibbāna, and affirms it with reference to formations. Then, the proponent asks, "Regarding the possible and impossible etc..." Mindfulness is directed to formations, Emptiness-mindfulness is directed to Nibbāna. Taking this method, "The confluence of two contacts, The confluence of two minds occurs," When asked, finding no loophole, he rejects it. The same method applies to the signless and wishless. Because of the absence of signs of beings, the aggregates are signless. Because of the absence of the sign of formations, Nibbāna is signless. Even in a single phenomenon, The aggregates are wishless, Because of the established designation, And the meaning to be wished for, By the seven wishes. Nibbāna is wishless, By the wish for craving, Or by craving, Being the object, By the wish for all formations. Therefore, here too, Rejection and affirmation Should be understood in the same way as before. 358. Then, "Just as the foundations of mindfulness and other supramundane phenomena are noble and have emptiness as their object, What is your knowledge of what is possible and impossible?" There are questions in direct and reverse order. There, all affirmations and all rejections belong to the opponent. By this method, the questioning and answering should be understood for the remaining knowledges as well. In the Pāli, however, the rest are condensed, and only the knowledge of decease and rebirth is distinguished at the end. Thereafter, even in one's own doctrine, Having compared the knowledge of the destruction of the taints with the established "noble," There are questions about the nobility of the remaining knowledges in direct and reverse order. All those belong to the opponent, Affirmation and rejection belong to one's own side. They are of obvious meaning. In the Pāli, only the first and ninth are shown here, and the seven knowledges are condensed. Explanation of the Noble Talk. 3. Explanation of the Liberation Talk 363. Now, there is the Liberation Talk. There, for those who hold the view that "For minds devoid of lust, there is no such thing as liberation as a purpose. Just as a soiled cloth, when washed, is freed from dirt, so a lustful mind is freed from lust," Just like the blind people nowadays; Referring to them, the question "lustful?" belongs to one's own side, The affirmation belongs to the other. Then, asked in the manner beginning with "accompanied by lust?", the mind at the moment of the path... it is called. And then he rejects the idea that such a state of mind exists. When questioned in the manner beginning with "Saphassa," he rejects the idea, not seeing the release from passion, just as both contact and mind are released from passion. The meaning should be understood in the same way for aversion and delusion. Explanation of the Discourse on Release. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on Being Released 366. Now, there is the discourse on being released.