English
Thus, just as with this term "passing according to their deeds," so also with the terms "these worthy beings," etc., the meaning should be understood in connection with the usages. 378. "Does the venerable Sāriputta know the knowledge of beings passing according to their deeds?" Because some do not know that the Elder, due to his desirelessness, does not cultivate the higher knowledges, and think that he does not have them at all, therefore, thinking that "the Elder has not attained the divine eye," he asks this. For that very reason, when asked by another, "Does the venerable Sāriputta have the divine eye?" he denies it. When asked a second time, he acknowledges that the Elder has attained everything that a disciple should attain. Now, the proponent of his own view, creating a distraction for him, Indeed, the venerable Sāriputta said, beginning thus. This verse, the Elder spoke due to the mere absence of the vow of exertion, not due to the absence of the knowledge of discernment. But the opponent considers the meaning as if it were merely due to absence. Therefore, according to his view, the Elder only has knowledge arisen from his deeds, not divine vision. Therefore, it was said, "Therefore, it should not be said that knowledge arisen from deeds is divine vision." Explanation of the Discourse on Knowledge Arisen from Deeds. 10. Explanation of the Discourse on Restraint 379. Now, there is the Discourse on Restraint. There, for those who, beginning with the gods of Tāvatiṃsa, do not commit the five vices in the higher heavens, therefore, there is the view that there is restraint. The question is addressed to the proponent of one's own doctrine, the affirmation to the other, who does not see the practice of vice. Then, since restraint exists when there is no lack of restraint in what should be restrained, therefore, the question about the lack of restraint is addressed to the proponent of one's own doctrine, the denial to the other, due to the absence of killing living beings, etc., in the heavens. "Do humans have...?" etc., is said to show the occurrence of restraint when there is a lack of restraint, and of a lack of restraint when there is restraint. 380. In the questions beginning with "Abstaining from killing living beings...?" the affirmation should be understood as abstaining from committing killing living beings, etc., the denial as the non-existence of killing living beings, etc. The reverse questions are of obvious meaning. At the end, in the question "Is there no restraint in the heavens?" the affirmation is addressed to the proponent of one's own doctrine, referring to the absence of restraint after committing killing living beings, etc., again. Then, through deception, the question is addressed to the opponent, "If there is no restraint, are all the gods killers of living beings?" etc. The denial is addressed to the proponent of one's own doctrine, due to the absence of the practice of vice by the gods. The establishment of the doctrine is addressed to the opponent, taking only the word "No indeed." However, a doctrine established in this way remains unestablished. Explanation of the Discourse on Restraint. 11. Explanation of the Discourse on Non-Perception 381. Now, there is the Discourse on Non-Perception. There, for those who say, "Due to conditions, consciousness arises," there is no rebirth without consciousness. "And those gods who arise from perception, from that body..." Because of the statement "departing," the view arises that even the beings without perception have consciousness at the moment of death and rebirth, just like the blind people of today; the question is directed at those holding this view by the proponent of one's own doctrine, and the affirmation is by the other. Then, the proponent of one's own doctrine, intending to challenge him with "What is that state, a state of consciousness?" and so on, says "a state of consciousness, a destination of consciousness," and so on. All of that and what follows should be understood according to the method of the Pāli. Explanation of the Discourse on Beings Without Perception. 12. Explanation of the Discourse on the Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception 384. Now, there is the discourse called the Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception. Here, for those who, because of the statement "the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception," should not say, "in that existence there is consciousness," the view arises, just like the blind people of today; the question is directed at those holding this view by the proponent of one's own doctrine, and the affirmation is by the other. All the rest here should be understood according to the method of the Pāli. Explanation of the Discourse on the Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception. Third Chapter. 4. Fourth Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discourse on a Householder Being an Arahant 387. Now, there is the discourse called a Householder Being an Arahant. Here, for those who, having seen the attainment of Arahantship by sons of good families and others who remain in the guise of householders, have the view "a householder can be an Arahant," just like the people of the northern region today; the question is directed at those holding this view by the proponent of one's own doctrine. Here, "of a householder" means that one who is a householder because he is bound by the fetters of a householder, can be an Arahant. But the opponent, not considering the intention, affirms, seeing only the appearance of a householder. Now, to show this principle, "there is an Arahant" and so on is begun. All of that is easily understood. Explanation of the Discourse on a Householder Being an Arahant. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on Spontaneous Birth 388. Now, there is the discourse called Spontaneous Birth. Here, for those who, because of the statements "he is spontaneously born, one who attains final Nibbāna there" ( Taking it wrongly, the view that one is an arahant with the arising in the Pure Abodes, and changing the phrase "those who attain Nibbāna after being struck" to reading "attaining Nibbāna upon arising," the view that one is an arahant with the arising, just as among the northerners nowadays; regarding them, the question is from the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion from the other. Therein, since the arising-consciousness is worldly, even a stream-enterer and so on are not, what to say of an arahant. Therefore, to show him this method, "with the arising, a stream-enterer" and so on is begun. 389. "Sāriputta" and so on is said with the meaning of a challenge: is even one among these great elders called an arahant with the arising? 390. "Upapattesiyena" means with the rebirth-consciousness. For it seeks and searches for arising, therefore it is called "upapattesiyena." The rest here is clear in meaning. Explanation of the Arising Discourse. 3. Explanation of the Discourse on the Untainted 391. Now, the discourse on the untainted begins. Therein, the view of those for whom all the things of an untainted arahant are untainted, just as among the northerners nowadays; regarding them, the question "an arahant?" is from the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion from the other. Then, with the meaning of a challenge, "are only the path and so on arising for him?" "the path, the fruit" and so on is begun. Asked "is the eye untainted?" he rejects it because it is tainted. Asked a second time, he asserts "it is of the untainted." 392. In the question about the robe, he rejects it for fear of a contradiction of characteristics, that one and the same thing is both untainted and tainted. Asked a second time, he asserts "having been of the untainted, it becomes of the tainted." In both questions, the same method applies to "is it untainted?" However, since the proponent of one's own doctrine has agreed to "the very same," he challenges with "the path, having been untainted" and so on. In this way, the meaning should be understood everywhere. Explanation of the Discourse on the Untainted. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on Being Endowed 393. Now, the discourse on being endowed begins. Therein, there are two kinds of being endowed: being endowed with the coming-together in the present moment, and And also the attainment of, the possession of, a state in the form realm, etc. So as long as the attained special qualities do not decline, so long is it obtained. But for those whose doctrine is that, setting aside these two possessions, there is another possession named based on the nature of rebirth, just as now among the northerners, for them there is no such thing as the nature of attainment. To make them understand this, the question "Is an arahant possessed of the four fruits?" is for the sake of one's own doctrine, the assertion for the sake of the other, with reference to attainment. Then, to censure him with "If for you an arahant is possessed of the four fruits just as he is of the four aggregates, in that case, the four contacts, etc., in the four fruits, by them possession of the arahant would be obtained," the statement "Is an arahant possessed of the four contacts?" etc., was begun. All that was rejected by the opponent because of the absence of the four contacts, etc., at one moment. The same method applies in the questions about the non-returner, etc. 395. "Has the fruit of stream-entry passed away?" does not mean like one who has attained the second jhāna after the first jhāna; but he asks "has it passed away" because of the non-arising again. "The path of stream-entry," etc., was begun to show that because of what has passed away, there is no more possession of it. 396. In the question "And are they not subject to decline?", since just as mundane jhāna states decline due to the arising of opposing factors, so it is not with supramundane states.