English
Then, the question from the proponent of one's own doctrine is whether it can be challenged in terms of material gifts, the denial from the other is that it cannot be given like food and the like. Again, after firmly establishing it, the affirmation of the same person is based on the sutta, "he gives safety." But in the questions about contact and so on, he rejects it, not seeing the usage of "he gives contact" and so on. 479. "Unpleasant fruit" and so on is said to illustrate that a non-mental state can be dāna. For a non-mental state, such as food and the like, does not give rise to future results; this should be understood as being said to establish the certainty of having pleasant results. This is also the intention here: if a non-mental state, such as food and the like, were dāna, then giving unpleasant, undesirable medicine with a benevolent mind would produce only unpleasant results, like neem fruits from neem seeds. Since here the generosity of mind accompanied by a desire for benefit is dāna, therefore even in an unpleasant gift, the dāna has only pleasant results. Thus, when the proponent of another doctrine has established that mental states are dāna, the proponent of one's own doctrine says, "The Buddha said dāna has pleasant results" and so on, to prove that material gifts are dāna by another method. But the proponent of another doctrine denies it, not seeing that robes and the like have pleasant results. Sutta-based proof... It is suitable even in the opponent's argument, and also in one's own argument, but not in one single meaning. "A gift is a desired result" means only the state of being a desired result is rejected. Therefore, "it should not be said by that" means that it should not be said only in the sense of being a desired result. But in the sense of being given, a gift is simply giving. Indeed, this discussion is only to remove the confusion of gifts. Description of the Discourse on Giving. 5. Description of the Discourse on Merit Made by Use 483. Now, there is the discourse on merit made by use. In that, taking suttas such as "Their merit always increases, day and night" and "Monks, when a monk uses a robe" unwisely, the view that "there is merit made by use," like that of the Rajagirika Siddhatthika Sammitiyas, is held; regarding them, the question "is there merit made by use?" is for the proponent, the affirmation for the other. Then, to challenge him, saying, "Merit is the wholesome qualities such as contact, not beyond that, therefore they should be increased by contact, etc.," "merit made by use is contact, etc." is begun. All that is rejected by the other because it does not increase them. "Like a creeper," etc., are said to challenge, "Just as creepers, etc., grow by themselves even without action or cultivation, do they grow in this way?" But it is rejected with "no" because it does not increase in that way. 484. In the question "does not bring together," he affirms according to the view that the prior intention of the recipients increases with use, thus that is merit. Then, questioned with "for one who does not turn back," etc., he rejects it with reference to the giver's intention of generosity. There, "for one who does not turn back" means for one who does not turn back or transform the subconscious mind with the preliminary attention of the intention of giving. "Without effort" means without effort. "Not bringing together" means not bringing together. Indeed, attention, cutting off the subconscious mind and arising in its own path, brings together the intention of giving. name. Does merit accrue to one who does not apply his mind with such an act? Not applying his mind means not directing his mind. For by adverting, one directs the mind that arises immediately after. Thus, not doing so is the meaning. Indeed, this is a locative in the sense of instrumentality. Not intending means not generating intention. Not aspiring means not making wholesome desire, which is aspiration. Not setting forth means not establishing the mind in the manner of generosity, that is the meaning. Surely, is it turning towards, or is it in the turn of the application, or for one possessing application? Or, is it that merit accrues to him after the application, or to the one possessing application? 485. In "of two contacts," etc., he refutes the absence of two contacts, etc., for the giver at one moment, and acknowledges it with reference to the contacts, etc., of both the giver and the one using. Moreover, he acknowledges it on the basis of the doctrine that there is a confluence of the five consciousnesses for him. Then his own proponent, having closed the door of the alternative, asks the question about wholesome, etc., in a directly opposite manner to rebuke him. There too, he refutes it with reference to the absence of association of wholesome and unwholesome at one moment. But he acknowledges it on the doctrine that enjoyment-made, mind-dissociated arises. Then his own proponent refutes him with a sutta. 486. In the sutta-evidence, it is said that merit always increases with reference to the merit arising intermittently in the manner of recollection, reflection, etc., of planting a park, etc. "The stream of his merit is immeasurable" is said because of the gift of requisites to one abiding in immeasurables, and in the manner of rejoicing, "Such a robe is being used by me." He considers that to be enjoyment-made. But since merit accrues even when the gift-item has been received by the recipient but not used, therefore the proponent's argument is stronger, there the meaning should be seen as "received by the recipient." The rest is of obvious meaning. The exposition of the story of enjoyment-made merit. 6. It Description of the Talk on Gifts Given Here 488-491. Now, here is the talk called "Gifts Given Here." There, regarding those whose view is that "beings who have passed away sustain themselves by gifts given here," based on the statement, "They live by what is given here, the departed, who have passed away," like the Siddhatthikas of Rājagaha; with them in mind, the question "by gifts given here?" is from the proponent of one's own doctrine, the affirmation from the other. Then, questioned about things like robes, he refutes. "Another is the doer" means that for actions that give results to another, another is the doer, not that one does one's own action by oneself, it is said. But when asked thus, the other refutes out of fear of contradicting the Suttas. "Seeing one giving a gift" means seeing one giving a donation. There, since their enjoyments arise there because of one's own approval, therefore, even though he establishes the view with this reason, it remains unestablished. For they do not live by the things given here alone. In the remaining Sutta arguments, this is the same method. Description of the Talk on Gifts Given Here. 7. Description of the Talk on the Result of Earthly Action 492. Now, here is the talk called "The Result of Earthly Action." There, since it is said, "There is action that leads to lordship, action that leads to dominion," where the state of lords is called lordship, and the state of rulers is called dominion, and there is action that leads to earthly lordship and dominion. Therefore, regarding those whose view is that "the earth is the result of action," like the Andhakas; with them in mind, the question "the earth?" is from the proponent of one's own doctrine, the affirmation from the other. "Of pleasant feeling," etc., is said in terms of showing the nature of the result of action. Among the results specified in the manner of "there is contact," etc., contact is of the nature of pleasant feeling, etc. And that, and perceptions, etc., are associated with pleasant feeling, etc., feelings, etc., with perceptions, etc., all are with an object, and there is attention for them, known as initial engagement, turning, etc., volition, which is the condition for action, and the desire for the agreeable result there. Ah, the root craving that arises through aspiration, does it ask, "Is the earth like this for you?" The other denies it. The reverse questions and so on are straightforward in meaning. 493. To the question, "Is the result of karma shared by others?" he denies it, referring to contact and so on, and affirms it, referring to the shared nature of the earth and so on, and the form arising from karma. "It is not shared by others," this statement is shown by citing a doctrine of another sect. To the question, "Do all beings enjoy the earth?" he denies it, referring to those not dependent on the earth, and affirms it, referring to those who are dependent. To the question, "Do they pass away without enjoying the earth?" he affirms it, referring to those who pass away in the immaterial realms. "Without exhausting the result of karma," this is said according to the doctrine of another sect. For according to their doctrine, they pass away only after exhausting the result of karma. But in our own doctrine, there is no passing away without exhausting the result that has arisen from karma that has found an opportunity. And according to their doctrine, the earth is a shared result of karma, and therefore it is a result that has already arisen. It is fitting to challenge that passing away without exhausting what remains as a result is not appropriate. The other denies it according to his doctrine. To the question, "Is the result of karma of a wheel-turning monarch?" he denies it, referring to the unshared contact and so on, and affirms it, referring to the shared. For according to their doctrine, the earth, the ocean, the sun, the moon, and so on are the shared result of karma of all. 494. In "leading to dominion," dominion means having much wealth. Sovereignty means controlling other people according to one's will, and having the status of a lord in the sense of being revered by them. There, karma is said to lead to that in terms of acquisition,