English
"Of pleasant feeling," etc., is said to show "a result is of such a kind." The sutta "Because of that action" is said to show the attainment of characteristics. For a great man is also of pure retinue because of doing action, but retinue is not a result, therefore, this is not probative. The Explanation of the Topic of Sound as Result. 4. The Explanation of the Topic of the Six Sense Bases 638-640. Now, there is the topic called the topic of the six sense bases. Since... The six sense bases arise from actions done, therefore, those who hold the view that they are "result," like the Mahāsaṅghikas; regarding them, the question about the eye base being a result is from one's own side, the affirmation from the other. The rest is in accordance with the method stated below. In "the six sense bases are result," the mind base could be a result. The rest arise solely from action, not as result. Therefore, this is not a valid proof. Explanation of the Discourse on the Six Sense Bases. 5. Explanation of the Discourse on Being at Most Seven Times More 541-545. Now, there is the discourse called "being at most seven times more," in which, since it is stated "one who is at most seven times more," therefore, those who hold the view that "a person who is at most seven times more is destined to be at most seven times more," like the Uttarāpathakas; setting them aside, to show this distinction that "apart from the Noble Path, there is no other destiny for him, by which he would be destined to be at most seven times more," the question is from one's own side, the affirmation from the other. In "mother is alive," etc., this is the intention – there are two destinies: the destiny of rightness and the destiny of wrongness. The destiny of rightness is the Noble Path. It determines both the state of not being subject to downfall and the arising of fruition. The destiny of wrongness is an action with immediate result. It determines immediate rebirth in hell. There, one who is at most seven times more is destined by the path of stream-entry to the state of not being subject to downfall and to the arising of fruition. But there is no destiny of the remaining paths for him, because he has not attained them, and he is incapable of committing an action with immediate result. But you desire a destiny for him, therefore we say to you – "is he destined by this destiny of wrongness?" In the questions about being incapable of committing, he rejects the absence of actions with immediate result, he affirms regarding one who is at most seven times more. In the question "is there a destiny," seeing no destiny for being at most seven times more, he rejects it. "Are there mindfulness practices for you," etc., is stated to show the path factors that are considered destiny. But since the arising of the first path has not occurred for him again, even those are not present, therefore he rejects it. The rest here... It is simply clear in meaning. But, as to the statement by the Blessed One, "This person is at most seven times more," the Blessed One declares by the power of his knowledge, "This person, having transmigrated through so many existences, will attain final Nibbāna, this one so many." It is not that the term "at most seven times more," or "one who goes from family to family," or "one-seed," is due to any law of existence. Therefore, this is not supportive. Explanation of the Discourse on One Who Is at Most Seven Times More. 646-647. The discourse on one who goes from family to family and one-seed should also be understood in the same way. Explanation of the Discourse on One Who Goes from Family to Family and One-Seed. 8. Explanation of the Discourse on Depriving of Life 648-649. Now, there is the discourse called "Depriving of Life." Here, since the taking of life occurs with a mind associated with hate, and hate is not abandoned by one endowed with views, therefore, the question "Would one endowed with views intentionally deprive a living being of life?" is a question by the proponent of his own doctrine, referring to those whose doctrine it is that "one endowed with views would intentionally deprive a living being of life," such as the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas; the affirmation is by the other. But in the questions beginning with "Intentionally (kill) mother?" he rejects it with "This is impossible, there is no opportunity," fearing the Sutta. "Without respect for the Teacher," etc., is stated to show the absence of transgression of the training rule for one who has respect for the Teacher, etc. But the other, rejecting that there is no disrespect for him due to unwholesomeness, and accepting that there is respect, and then being asked again "Without respect?" affirms, referring to the absence of paying homage to the shrine, circumambulating it, etc., due to distraction because of being engaged in those various activities, and due to lack of mindfulness and lack of attention. Being asked again in the manner beginning with "Would he destroy?" he rejects it because he does not intentionally do such an action. The rest here is simply clear in meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on Depriving of Life. 9. Explanation of the Discourse on the States of Woe 650-652. Now, there is the discourse called "States of Woe." Here, those who, having taken both the states of woe and the craving which is the object of the states of woe, such as form, etc., and then without dividing it again in that way, say without distinction, "The states of woe are abandoned by one endowed with views," such as the Uttarāpathakas; the question is in reference to them. The proponent's question, the opponent's admission. "He would be attached to a form that leads to misery," etc., is said to challenge the opponent, because for one accomplished in the view of the doctrine of another, whose bad destination is not abandoned, the bad destination is not abandoned. The meaning here is quite straightforward. "He would be reborn in hell," etc., indicates the abandonment of bad destinations, or the abandonment of craving that leads to bad destinations, not the abandonment of craving for forms, etc., by beings in bad destinations; therefore, it is not valid. Explanation of the Discourse on Bad Destinations. 653. The same method applies to the Discourse on One Who Will Be Reborn Seven Times. The Twelfth Chapter. 13. The Thirteenth Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discourse on One Who Remains for an Aeon 654-657. Now, there is the Discourse on One Who Remains for an Aeon. There, regarding those who hold the doctrine that "having split the Sangha, he suffers in hell for an aeon," or "the one who splits the Sangha remains in hell for an entire aeon," such as the Rajagirikas; with reference to them, the question "One who remains for an aeon?" is the proponent's, the admission is the opponent's. "The Buddha and the world" is said to show the absence of schism in the Sangha without the arising of a Buddha. "An aeon endures, and the Sangha is split," etc., is said to show that "if he remains for an entire aeon, having done that deed from the time it endures, he would be born there and remain." "Past," etc., has the same meaning as stated below. In the question "One who remains for an aeon has psychic power?" he rejects it with reference to psychic power developed through meditation, but in another's doctrine, they desire his psychic power born of birth, with reference to that, he admits it. "Desire as the basis of psychic power," etc., is said to challenge that "this is merely a doctrine that one has psychic power through psychic power born of birth; what is the point of that? If he has psychic power, the bases of psychic power would have been developed in this way." The sutta "One destined for misery, a hell-dweller" is said with reference to the aeon of life, which is when he would remain for a time that is one part of eighty parts of an aeon; therefore, it is not valid. Explanation of the Discourse on One Who Remains for an Aeon. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on the Acquisition of Merit 658-659. Now, there is the Discourse on the Acquisition of Merit. There, the one who remains for an aeon, in his own doctrine, the merit of the realm of desire... He obtains the fruit. But he does not obtain that which would counteract that rebirth, either great or supramundane. But for those who, without making this distinction, hold the view that "he does not obtain wholesome consciousness," just like the northerners; to break that view by showing the distinction, the question is for the proponent of his own doctrine, the assertion for the other. The rest here is of obvious meaning. The Explanation of the Discourse on Obtaining Wholesomeness. 3. The Explanation of the Discourse on One Who Has Immediately Commissioned 660-662. Now, there is the discourse on one who has immediately commissioned. Therein, one who has immediately commissioned is one by whom, immediately after the dissolution of the aggregates, a matricide, etc., an action entailing immediate retribution, has been commissioned. Therein, he who, by a fixed command, will do that action, because it is produced by a volition aiming at accomplishment, is fixed in wrongness, incapable of transgressing the fixedness of rightness. He who, by an unfixed command, will do that action, because it is not produced by a volition aiming at accomplishment, is not fixed in wrongness, capable of transgressing the fixedness of rightness: this is the established position in one's own school. But for those who hold the view that "even by an unfixed command, he is incapable of transgressing the fixedness of rightness," just like the northerners; to break that view, the proponent of his own doctrine gives the preliminary position and has himself questioned by the opponent as to one who has immediately commissioned.