English
421. Now, there is the Discourse on the Non-Learner. Since elders like Ānanda know the non-learner in the manner of "the Blessed One is sublime," etc., therefore, the question is for the proponent's side and the affirmation for the opponent's side, concerning those whose view is that "a learner has knowledge of the non-learner," just like the northerners. The other knows. "He knows, he sees" This is said in terms of knowledge acquired by oneself. "Gotrabhu" and so on are said to show the absence of higher and higher knowledge in one established in a lower plane. If the opponent says, "The venerable Ānanda, a trainee, knows 'the Blessed One is great'," he wants that to be the knowledge of a non-trainee, because it occurs in the Blessed One, who is a non-trainee, but this is not the knowledge of a non-trainee. Therefore, even a doctrine established in this way is as if not established. The Explanation of the Discourse on the Knowledge of a Non-Trainee. 3. The Explanation of the Discourse on the Perverted. 424. Now, there is the discourse called "the Perverted." Therein, "Whoever enters into earth kasina with the perception of earth, that knowledge of his is perverted knowledge," whose doctrine it is, like that of the blind, referring to them, the question is for the proponent, the affirmation for the other. For the sign arisen dependent on earth is not earth itself, and here he has the perception of earth. Therefore, "perverted knowledge" is his intention. Then the proponent, "The characteristic earth, the composite earth, the sign earth, the earth deity, all are earth, knowledge as earth in them is not perverted. But the perversion such as 'impermanent as permanent' is called perverted knowledge. Is this one of these for you?" to challenge, he says "impermanent as permanent" and so on. The other, referring to the absence of the characteristic of perversion, denies, referring to the earth sign, affirms. "Wholesome" is said referring to the knowledge of trainees and ordinary people. "Is there an arahant?" Even in these questions, due to the absence of the characteristic of perversion, he denies. Referring to the earth sign, he affirms. "Is all earth?" He asks, "Is all that earth kasina the characteristic earth itself?" The proponent, because of the absence of that, denies. "Is there earth, and is there someone who enters into earth as earth?" is the question for the proponent. Its meaning: "Is there a sign earth, and is there someone who enters into that earth as earth itself, not as water or fire?" "Is there earth?" and so on. ‘‘If what exists is perceived as it is, knowledge is distorted; if Nibbāna exists, even perceiving that, the path knowledge eradicating all distortions would be distorted for them’’— this is stated to show that. Explanation of the Discourse on Distortions. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on Determinacy 428-431. Now, there is the Discourse on Determinacy. Therein, the person who enters the right determinacy, that "this one is capable of realizing the Dhamma," because the Blessed One knows, therefore, "for a person who is still undetermined, a common person, there is knowledge for entering determinacy," whose doctrine this is, just as of those in the Northern regions now; referring to them, the question "for the undetermined?" is for the proponent. Therein, "for entering determinacy" means determinacy is called the path, for going on the path, for entering the path, is the meaning. But the knowledge of him, seeing which the Blessed One knows "this one is capable," referring to that, the assertion is for the opponent. Then, to show the proponent's illogicality, he says the contrary application, "for the determined?" Therein, in the first question, he rejects that for one determined by the path, there is no knowledge for going to the undetermined. In the second, he asserts by way of non-existence. In the third, because it is asked "for the undetermined?" he rejects it by way of contradiction of doctrine. Again, making the first question the fourth, three questions are made in terms of "for the determined, for going to determinacy," and so on. Among them, in the first, because for one determined by the initial path, there is no knowledge again for that purpose, therefore he rejects it. In the second, he asserts by way of non-existence. In the third, he rejects it by way of contradiction of doctrine. Again, making the first question the eighth, three questions are made in terms of "for the undetermined, for going to the undetermined," and so on. The meaning of them should be understood in the manner stated. Again, making the first question the twelfth, questions based on that are made, such as "is there determinacy?" and so on. Therein, because knowledge for entering determinacy is only path knowledge, therefore, referring to that, it is said "there is determinacy." But when the other says "determinacy?" he rejects it, When "knowledge" is mentioned, he acknowledges it. The same method applies to mindfulness and so on. The opposite is straightforward in meaning. "Gotrabhu" and so on are said to show that whatever is not attained by someone, that thing does not exist for them. "The Blessed One knows" means he knows by the power of his knowledge, not because of the existence of knowledge that goes by necessity. Therefore, for this reason, even if his doctrine is established, it is still unestablished. Explanation of the Discourse on Necessity. 5. Explanation of the Discourse on Discrimination 432-433. Now, there is the Discourse on Discrimination. There, those who, taking it that "whatever knowledge there is of the noble ones, all of it is supramundane," hold the doctrine that "all knowledge is discrimination," like the blind; the question is directed at the proponent of his own view, the acknowledgment at the other. In the questions on conventional knowledge, regarding the attainment-knowledge in the earth-kasina convention, he rejects it, regarding the knowledge of expression, he acknowledges it. In the question "Whatever conventions?", he rejects it with reference to ordinary people. In the questions on telepathic knowledge, he rejects it with reference to the knowledge of ordinary people, he acknowledges it with reference to the knowledge of the noble ones. In the questions on all wisdom, he rejects it with reference to the kasina attainment question, he acknowledges it with reference to the supramundane. "Earth-kasina attainment" and so on are said for the purpose of asking, "Is all the wisdom in these many places discrimination?" Therefore, since all supramundane wisdom is discrimination, by saying "all knowledge," he establishes it together with the general result. Explanation of the Discourse on Discrimination. 6. Explanation of the Discourse on Conventional Knowledge 434-435. Now, there is the Discourse on Conventional Knowledge. There, there are two truths: conventional truth and ultimate truth. However, those who, without making such a distinction, say that even conventional knowledge "has truth as its object" by the general meaning of the word "truth," like the blind; this discourse is begun to refute their wrong speech and to purify their views. There, "should not be said" is the question of the opponent, with reference to ultimate truth. The assertion about conventional truth. "In conventional truth" means in truth that has entered into convention. Or, "bhūma" is used in the sense of "paccatta," meaning conventional truth. The question, "Is conventional knowledge solely object-oriented towards truth?" is the assertion of the opponent, the reply of the other. Then, to challenge him, "If it is indeed object-oriented towards truth without distinction, then with that knowledge, one should perform the complete understanding of suffering, etc.," he began with "with that knowledge," etc. Explanation of the Discourse on Conventional Knowledge. 7. Explanation of the Discourse on Objects of Mind 436-438. Now, there is the Discourse on Objects of Mind. Here, taking only the statement "knowledge of the minds of others," the question, "Is that knowledge solely object-oriented towards mind?" is directed towards those whose doctrine it is, just like the blind ones of today; the question is from the opponent, the reply from the other. Then, to challenge him, "For one who knows the mind in terms of passion, etc., passion, etc., are also objects; therefore, it should not be said that it is solely object-oriented towards mind," he began with "Surely, is there not someone," etc. "Object-oriented towards contact" means in the object reckoned as contact. The same method applies to "object-oriented towards feeling," etc. Again, when asked, "Should knowledge be said to be object-oriented towards contact?" he asserts, "When one attends to the characteristic of contact, which is touching, contact itself is the object." When asked, "Is this knowledge in the category of contact?" he denies it due to the absence of such a sutta passage. The same method applies to feeling, etc. Now, to show the very thing on which the doctrine relies and to establish the doctrine, he began with "Surely, is there not knowledge of the minds of others," etc. But that doctrine, even if established by clinging to mere words, is as good as not established. Explanation of the Discourse on Objects of Mind. 8. Explanation of the Discourse on Knowledge of the Future 439-440. Now, there is the Discourse on Knowledge of the Future. Here, the future is both proximate and distant. Among them, there is absolutely no knowledge of the proximate. Just as with the proximate, so too with that encompassed by a single thought-moment, a single impulse. Here, those who desire knowledge of all the future, just like the blind ones; the question is directed towards them from the opponent, the reply from the other.