English
are called attainers because of having realized them and not lost them. Here, those who do not grasp this distinction, since those who have attained jhāna also have past and future jhāna, hold the view that "they are associated with the past and the future," like the Andhakas. Referring to them is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion of the other. The remainder here is self-explanatory. But "one who meditates on the eight deliverances," etc., proves the state of being an attainer, not the state of being associated. Explanation of the discourse on association with the past and future. Ninth Chapter. 10. Tenth Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discourse on Cessation 571-572. Now, there is the discourse on cessation. Here, those who hold the view that "with the breaking moment of the life-continuum mind of one who has reached the state of rebirth, the five aggregates arise, consisting of the four aggregates, wholesome or unwholesome, and the mind-produced materiality, which are counted as action. For if these did not arise, there would be a break in the continuity when the life-continuum ceases," like the Andhakas; referring to them is the question about "of one who has reached the state of rebirth" by the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion of the other. Here, in all four instances of "of one who has reached the state of rebirth," the singular is used in the sense of the plural and abundance. The meaning here is "if the five aggregates of rebirth do not cease." "Of the ten" means "of rebirth." Said in terms of aggregates and action-aggregates. There, in the first question, he rejects, "Those five alone are aggregates," in terms of aggregate-characteristic and action. In the second question, he acknowledges the difference with reference to prior and subsequent, and with reference to the action of arising. However, when asked about the combination of two contacts and thoughts, he rejects it due to the absence of a sutta-trace. "Actions are four" means that four, wholesome or unwholesome, are taken without form. "Action-knowledge" is the unobjectified knowledge permitted by the opponent to the arahant at the moment of experiencing eye-consciousness. "Does the path arise when ceased?" is the question of the opponent; the affirmation, "It does not arise when not ceased," is of the proponent. "Does one who is dead develop the path?" is the opponent's question with a trick. But since a being lives from rebirth to the death-thought, the proponent rejects, "No, it does not." Explanation of the Discourse on Cessation. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on "Form is the Path" 573-575. Now, there is the discourse called "Form is the Path." There, with reference to those whose doctrine is, "Right speech, action, and livelihood are form," such as the Mahīśāsakas, Sammitīyas, and Mahāsāṃghikas; the question, "Are they path-constituents?" is of the proponent, the affirmation is of the other. Then, to challenge him, "If your right speech, etc., are form, not abstinences, as the path beginning with right view has the nature of being objectified, etc., so too would that form be," he said, "Is it objectified?" etc. There, the rejection and the affirmation should be understood in accordance with the opponent's doctrine. The rest here is easy to understand. Explanation of the Discourse on "Form is the Path." 3. Explanation of the Discourse on the Path of One Endowed with Five Consciousnesses 576. Now, there is the discourse called "The Path of One Endowed with Five Consciousnesses." There, with reference to those whose doctrine is, "One endowed with five consciousnesses has path-development," relying on the sutta, "Having seen a form with the eye, he is not a taker of signs," such as the Mahāsāṃghikas, the question is of the proponent, the affirmation is of the other. Then, to challenge him, "If he has path- There is cultivation, either by way of the five-sense-door consciousness, or the path must occur through the five sense consciousnesses, but these are not path-like, because they have nibbana as their object, and because they are not supramundane, and the path is not of the nature of the five-sense-door consciousnesses, because it is not included in their characteristics. To refute this, he begins with "the five-sense-door consciousnesses have arisen-matter as their object." Here, the intention is this: if path cultivation were possible for one associated with the five-sense-door consciousnesses, then the mind-consciousness with which the path is conjoined, would also be possible for one associated with the five-sense-door consciousnesses. If that were the case, the characteristic that is stated, "the five-sense-door consciousnesses have arisen-matter as their object," should be stated as "six consciousnesses." But it is not stated that way, but only as "five-sense-door consciousnesses," therefore it should not be said, "for one associated with the five-sense-door consciousnesses, there is path cultivation." Since this is the intention here, the proponent, having made the opponent accept that characteristic, says, "and it should not be said that for one associated with the five-sense-door consciousnesses, there is path cultivation." Another way: the five-sense-door consciousnesses have arisen-matter as their object, the path can also be without matter. And they have arisen objects, the path does not have an object that should be stated. They have only pre-arisen matter, the path can also be without matter. They have pre-arisen objects, the path has a non-pre-arisen object. They have only internal matter, the path can also be without matter. And they have external objects in terms of form, etc., the path has nibbana as its object. They, relying on unceased matter, occur as having unmixed matter, the path can also be without matter. They, cognizing only unceased forms, etc., occur as having unmixed objects, the path has nibbana as its object. They have diverse matter, the path is without matter or has one matter. They have diverse objects, the path has one object. They, occurring in their own respective ranges of form, etc., do not experience each other's object-range, the path does not make even one object in forms, etc., its range. They, having made the functional mind-element a forerunner, arise, therefore they do not arise without attention, without advertence, the path They arise without adverting. They are cluttered with reception and so on, there is no opportunity for the path. They arise in mutual precedence, there is no before or after with the path, at the time of their arising, at the time of sharp insight, in the place of their arising, even in the immaterial realms they arise. Because they are interrupted by reception and so on, they do not arise immediately after each other, there is no interruption of the path by reception and so on. They have no function other than mere inclination, the function of the path is the eradication of defilements. Since this is the intention here, therefore the proponent, by these means, having convinced the opponent of the non-occurrence of the path in the realm of the five sense consciousnesses, says, "But indeed, it should not be said that one endowed with five sense consciousnesses has the development of the path." 577. "Relying on emptiness," he asks, "Just as the supramundane path, relying on emptiness, on Nibbāna, the mundane arises relying on a pure mass of formations, what is it for you, this eye-consciousness?" The other rejects it, because of the statement, "Having relied on the eye and on forms." Asked a second time, he acknowledges, because of the statement, "Not taking hold of signs," that which is signless there, that itself is emptiness, implying this. "Having relied on the eye," and so on, this same method applies in both questions. 578-579. "Eye-consciousness, relying on the past and future," here the intention is this: "One endowed with mind-consciousness has the development of the path, and mind-consciousness arises relying on the past and future, what is it for you, this eye-consciousness too?" "Relying on contact," and so on, this same method applies. "Having seen a form with the eye, not taking hold of signs," here the non-grasping of signs is stated in the moment of impulsion, not in the moment of eye-consciousness. Therefore, even with reference to the mundane path, this is not proof. Explanation of the discussion of the path for one endowed with five sense consciousnesses. 4. Explanation of the discussion of whether the five sense consciousnesses are wholesome 580-583. Now, there is the discussion of whether the five sense consciousnesses are wholesome. That is in the manner stated below. Is to be understood as slain. Explanation of the statement that the five consciousnesses involve mental activity. 5. Explanation of the Statement that the Five Consciousnesses Involve Mental Activity 584-586. Now, there is the statement that the five consciousnesses involve mental activity. Here, "mental activity" occurs in terms of wholesome and unwholesome. And it was said by the Teacher, "Seeing a form with the eye, one is a taker of signs, or not a taker of signs," etc. Taking that unwisely, those whose view is that "the five consciousnesses involve mental activity," such as the Mahāsaṅghikas, regarding them, the question is by the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion by the other. The rest here is similar to the previous account. Explanation of the statement that the five consciousnesses involve mental activity. 6. Explanation of the Statement Involving Two Kinds of Morality 587-589. Now, there is the statement involving two kinds of morality. Here, from the saying, "A wise man established in morality," etc. (Saṃ. Ni. 1.