English
For the defilements that are abandoned by the path, and are calmed by the fruit, they are thus abandoned and thus calmed, therefore it was asserted by one's own doctrine with "Yes." This meaning is indeed revealed later in "An arahant has attained the four paths," etc. The rest is clear in meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on Possession. 5. Explanation of the Discourse on Possession of Equanimity 397. In the discourse "An arahant is possessed of six kinds of equanimity," the meaning should also be understood in this way. For an arahant is said to be possessed of equanimities in the six doors because of the potential for their arising, not because of the arising of all of them at one moment. Explanation of the Discourse on Possession of Equanimity. 6. The Discourse on Whether the Bodhi is the Buddha Commentary 398. Now, the story is called "Buddha by Enlightenment." Here, "enlightenment" is a designation for both the knowledge of the four paths and the knowledge of omniscience. Therefore, for those who hold the view that one is a Buddha by enlightenment, just as something is white by its white color or dark by its dark color, similar to the Northerners nowadays, the question and inquiry are for the proponent of the view, and the affirmation and denial are for the opponent. In the question about the past, he denies because of its absence at that moment. When asked a second time, he affirms, referring to the attainment. Asked again about the task, he denies because of the absence of the task. Asked a second time, he affirms the absence of delusion in what he has done with it. But without giving any room for a loophole, when asked in the manner of "he understands suffering," he denies because of the absence of that task. In the question about the future, he denies because of the absence of the path knowledge at that moment. When asked a second time, thinking that one is a Buddha by future enlightenment, as in "the Buddha will go to Rājagaha," he affirms. When asked if he is doing what is to be done for enlightenment, he denies because of the absence of the task at that moment. When asked a second time, he affirms, saying, "If he were not doing it, he would not be called a Buddha. Since he will definitely do it, he is indeed doing it." Again, without giving any room for a loophole, when asked, he denies. The question about the present is straightforward in meaning, for the purpose of comparison. 399. When asked about the three enlightenments together, he affirms, referring to the knowledge of omniscience, because one should be called a Buddha by all three. When asked again about the three, he denies because of the absence of all of them in a single moment. When asked a second time, he affirms based on the knowledge of omniscience of the past, future, and present. Again, without giving any room for a loophole, when asked about being constantly and continuously, he denies. The question "Should enlightenment not be spoken of?" is for the opponent, because of the consequence of not being a Buddha in the moment of the absence of enlightenment. The affirmation is for the proponent. However, in the question "Is there an attainment of enlightenment?" in whichever being the path knowledge called enlightenment That which has arisen, there, "Buddha" is a conventional term, the assertion is his. Without knowing his intention, "Indeed!" is the establishment of doctrine, of the opponent. Now, to make clear its non-characteristic, "From the attainment of enlightenment, Buddha?" "From enlightenment, Buddha?" is the question of the proponent. Its meaning: "Is it because you attained enlightenment, that you are Buddha, therefore, from enlightenment, Buddha?" The other: "The attainment of enlightenment is merely the state of having arisen in a continuum, even after enlightenment has arisen and ceased. Enlightenment is knowledge at the moment of the path." Without considering this distinction, he again asserts. Then, asked by the proponent, "From the attainment of enlightenment, enlightenment?" not finding an opportunity to speak, he rejects it. Explanation of the "From Enlightenment, Buddha?" discussion. Thus, these three discussions belong only to the northerners. 7. Explanation of the Discussion on Characteristics 400. Now, the discussion on characteristics occurs. There, "For the great man endowed with these, there are only two destinies" taking this sutta unwisely, whose doctrine is that only a bodhisatta is endowed with characteristics, just as among the northerners nowadays; referring to them, the question is from the proponent, the assertion from the other. "Is a wheel-turning monarch a being?" Since a wheel-turning monarch is both a being and a bodhisatta, therefore, referring to one who is not a bodhisatta, he rejects it. Referring to a bodhisatta, he asserts it. 402. The "Thirty-two" sutta is spoken referring only to a bodhisatta. For he becomes a Buddha in his last existence, a wheel-turning monarch in the others, therefore, even what is not brought forth is similar to what is brought forth. Explanation of the Discussion on Characteristics. 8. Explanation of the Discussion on the Inevitable 403. Now, the discussion on the inevitable occurs. There, whose doctrine is that, referring to the ordination of Jotipāla in the Ghaṭikāra Sutta, "The bodhisatta, in the dispensation of Kassapa Buddha, was one of inevitable destiny, who lived the holy life," just as among the Andhakas nowadays; referring to them, "Is he a bodhisatta?" is the question of the proponent, standing in the doctrine, the assertion is from the other. Then, since the inevitable Or is it the name of the holy life, or the Noble Path? Except for Bodhisattas fulfilling the perfections, there is no other name for entering the fixed course. If there were, the Bodhisatta would be a Stream-enterer disciple. But it is not so. Only Buddhas, standing in their power of knowledge, declare, "This one will become a Buddha." Therefore, the assertion "again, a Bodhisatta" is the speaker's own view. The rejection of the last existence refers to the other. In the second question, the affirmation refers to the same one, concerning the time of Jotipāla. The same method applies in "Having become a disciple," and so on. "Through hearsay" means the Dhamma realized through hearsay. Having rejected the last existence, he affirms hearsay concerning the time of Jotipāla. 404. "Another teacher" refers to Āḷāra and Rāmaputta. "Venerable Ānanda," etc., is said to show that "Only those who have entered the fixed course are disciples, not others who have entered the fixed course are of such a nature." "A disciple transcends birth" means he asks whether, by whatever birth a disciple is, he transcends that, and in another existence is not a disciple. The other rejects it from the state of Stream-enterer, etc., as a Stream-enterer disciple, etc. The rest here is of obvious meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on Entering the Fixed Course. 9. Explanation of Another Discourse on Being Endowed 406. Now, there is another discourse called "Being Endowed." There, the question is from the speaker's own view, and the affirmation is from the other's, concerning those whose doctrine is that "A person standing in the fourth path is endowed with the three fruits by way of attainment," just as the Andhakas are now. The rest here should be understood in the same way as stated below in the discourse on being endowed with the four fruits. Explanation of Another Discourse on Being Endowed. 10. Explanation of the Discourse on Abandoning All Fetters 413. Now, there is a discourse called "Abandoning Fetters." There, the question is from the speaker's own view, and the affirmation is from the other's, concerning those whose doctrine is that "The abandonment of all fetters is Arahantship without qualification," just as the Andhakas are now. "Again, all fetters" means... Asked below, he rejects it, referring to what is abandoned by the three paths mentioned. Asked the second time, he acknowledges it, because there is nothing unabandoned by that path. In the case of views on self, etc., he rejects it, referring to the abandonment by the first path, and acknowledges it, referring to the complete abandonment by the fourth path. This is the method everywhere. Explanation of the Discourse on the Abandonment of All Fetters. The Fourth Chapter. 5. The Fifth Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discourse on Liberation 418. Now, there is the Discourse on Liberation. In it, the four knowledges—insight, path, fruition, and reviewing—are called liberation-knowledge. Among these, insight-knowledge is liberation-knowledge because it is liberated from the sign of impermanence, etc., or because it is liberation in the sense of being an accessory to liberation. The path is liberation by cutting off, fruition is liberation by tranquilization, and reviewing-knowledge is liberation-knowledge because it knows liberation. Thus, among the four kinds of liberation-knowledge, fruition-knowledge alone is liberation in the ultimate sense. The rest cannot be said to be "liberated" or "unliberated." Therefore, the question is for the proponent's side and the affirmation for the opponent's side, concerning those whose view is that "this liberation-knowledge is liberated" without specifying "this is called liberation-knowledge, it is liberated," just like the blind men. Again, asked about "whatever," he rejects it, referring to reviewing, etc. Asked about "one who has entered," he acknowledges it, referring to the stainlessness of path-knowledge. But since that knowledge does not exist for a stream-enterer established in fruition, therefore, to challenge that it is not called liberated, the proponent again says "of a stream-enterer," etc. By this method, the meaning should be understood everywhere. Explanation of the Discourse on Liberation. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on the Knowledge of the Non-Learner