English
The rest here is of obvious meaning. Explanation of the discussion on setting aside the Noble Path. 6. Explanation of the discussion on "it should not be said that the Sangha accepts offerings" 791-792. Now, there is the discussion called "it should not be said that the Sangha accepts offerings." There, "in the ultimate sense, the Sangha is only the paths and fruits, there is no Sangha other than the paths and fruits, and the paths and fruits accept nothing, therefore, it should not be said that the Sangha accepts offerings," is the view of some, like the Vetullakas, now known as proponents of great merit; regarding them, the question "should not be said" is by the proponent of his own view, the affirmation by the other. Then, to challenge him, "if the Sangha does not accept, the Teacher would not praise it with 'worthy of offerings' etc.," he says, "is the Sangha worthy of offerings?" etc. "Giving to the Sangha," "those who give to the Sangha, if there were no recipients, to whom would they give?" is said for the purpose of challenge. The Sutta "as the fire receives the offering" comes from another sect. There, "great cloud" is said referring to the rainfall of the cloud. For the rain indeed He accepts, not just the cloud. He accepts the path, with the view that "the Sangha is the path and its fruits," but the Sangha is not just the path and its fruits. But the eight individuals, designated based on the aggregates purified by the arising of the path and its fruits, are the Sangha, therefore this is not proof. Not to be said: the Sangha accepts offerings, explanation of the topic. 7. Not to be said: the Sangha purifies offerings, explanation of the topic. 793-794. Now, the topic "not to be said: the Sangha purifies offerings" arises. There, for those whose view is that "the Sangha is only the path and its fruits, and they cannot purify offerings, therefore it should not be said that the Sangha purifies offerings," just as for those same ones; referring to them is the question of the proponent of one's own view, the assertion of the other. "Worthy of gifts," etc., is said to show that "if the Sangha could not purify offerings, the Teacher would not praise them thus." "Purifies" means makes greatly fruitful. For a little given to the Sangha becomes much, much given becomes even more. "Worthy of offerings" means worthy of offerings, suitable for offerings, able to purify offerings, is the meaning. "They fulfill offerings" means they accomplish, they attain great fruit even from a small offering, is the meaning. The rest is as explained below. Not to be said: the Sangha purifies offerings, explanation of the topic. 8. Not to be said: the Sangha eats, explanation of the topic. 795-796. Now, the topic "not to be said: the Sangha eats" arises. There also, for those whose view is that "the Sangha is only the path and its fruits, and they do not eat anything, therefore it should not be said that the Sangha eats, drinks, consumes, savors," just as for those same ones; referring to them is the question of the proponent of one's own view, the assertion of the other. Then, to challenge them, saying "if the Sangha did not eat, the making of Sangha meals, etc., would be pointless," he said, "Now, are there not some who make Sangha meals," etc. "Group meals," etc., If the Saṅgha did not eat, whose would be the group meals, etc.?"—this is said to provoke. "Eight drinks"—this also is said to provoke, "If the Saṅgha did not drink, would the Teacher have allowed these drinks?" The rest here should be understood in the same way as stated below. Explanation of the statement: "It should not be said that the Saṅgha eats." 9. Explanation of the statement: "It should not be said that what is given to the Saṅgha is of great fruit." 797-798. Now, there is the statement: "It should not be said that what is given to the Saṅgha is of great fruit." Here too, the question is directed to the proponent of his own view, and the assertion is made by the other, concerning those whose view is: "The Saṅgha is only the paths and fruits, and it is not possible to give anything to them, nor can they receive it, nor is any benefit achieved by giving to them, therefore it should not be said that what is given to the Saṅgha is of great fruit," just as it is for them. "Worthy of offerings," etc., is said to show "If what is given to the Saṅgha were not of great fruit, the Teacher would not praise it thus." The rest is explained according to the text. Explanation of the statement: "It should not be said that what is given to the Saṅgha is of great fruit." 10. Explanation of the statement: "It should not be said that what is given to the Buddha is of great fruit." 799. Now, there is the statement: "It should not be said that what is given to the Buddha is of great fruit." Here, the question is directed to the proponent of his own view, and the assertion is made by the other, concerning those whose view is: "The Buddha, the Blessed One, does not consume anything, but shows himself as if consuming for the sake of conforming to the world, therefore, since it is of no benefit, it should not be said that what is given to him is of great fruit," just as it is for them. "Chief of bipeds," etc., is said to show "Even a gift to a morally bad person is a thousandfold, what then of such a chief person?" The rest here is explained according to the text. Explanation of the statement: "It should not be said that what is given to the Buddha is of great fruit." 11. Explanation of the purification of the offering. 800-801. Now, there is the purification of the offering. Here, "If the recipient is not pure, the offering is not pure," is the view of some. If the gift is purified by the recipient, it would be of great fruit. The giver gives the gift, the recipient experiences the result, so one would be the doer for another, one would experience pleasure and pain done by another, one would do, another would feel. Therefore, the gift is purified by the giver, not by the recipient, the giver's purity of mind is the giver of results," whose view this is, like the northerners; regarding them, the question is for the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion for the other. "Worthy of offerings," etc., is said to show "if the gift is not purified by the recipient, what would his state of being worthy of offerings do?" "One is the doer for another," that is, if the giver's intention in giving were done by the recipient, it would be fitting. But his pure intention in giving, regarding the object known as the recipient, is purified by way of great result, therefore this is not an accusation, "the gift is purified by the recipient." Explanation of the Discourse on the Purification of Offerings. The Seventeenth Chapter. 18. The Eighteenth Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discourse on the Human World 802-803. Now, there is the discourse on the human world. Therein, "The Tathagata is born in the world, grows up in the world, overcomes the world and dwells unattached to the world" (SN 3.94), taking this sutta unwisely, "The Blessed One is born in Tusita heaven, lives there, does not come to the human world, but shows only a created form here," whose view this is, like the Vetullakas of today; regarding them, the question is for the proponent of one's own doctrine, the assertion for the other. Then, to convince him with an opportunity to ask and with the sutta as evidence, he said, beginning with "Surely, is there?" "Born in the world," the opponent speaks referring to Tusita city. But the Teacher spoke of "the world" referring to the human world itself. "Overcoming the world," the opponent speaks with the view that he overcame the human world, but the Teacher dwelt having overcome the world of objects. "Unattached to the world," the opponent says, He speaks referring to the state of being unsoiled by the mud of men, but the Teacher lived unsoiled by defilements in worldly conditions. Therefore, this is not proof. Explanation of the Discourse on the World of Men. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on the Teaching of the Dhamma 804-806. Now, there is the discourse on the teaching of the Dhamma. Therein, "The Blessed One, dwelling in Tusita, sent forth an emanation for the purpose of teaching the Dhamma, and the Dhamma was taught by the venerable Ānanda, having accepted the teaching from both him and it, not by the Buddha, the Blessed One," is the doctrine of some, just like the Vetullakas; referring to them, the question is from the proponent of his own doctrine, the affirmation from the other. Then, to rebuke him, "If the Dhamma was taught by him, he himself would be the Teacher," he said, beginning with "abhinimmito jinoti." The other, not accepting it thus, rejects it. The rest here is of obvious meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on the Teaching of the Dhamma. 3. Explanation of the Discourse on Compassion 807-808. Now, there is the discourse on compassion. Therein, having seen the occurrence of a semblance of compassion due to attachment, because of passion, at the misfortune of beloved things, "Passion itself is called compassion, and that is not in the Blessed One, therefore there is no compassion in the Buddha, the Blessed One," is the doctrine of some, just like the Uttarāpathakas; referring to them, the question is from the proponent of his own doctrine, the affirmation from the other. Then, to rebuke him, "This compassion, being free from defilements, having beings as its object, being liberation of mind, being of eleven benefits, and being of the same kind as loving-kindness and the like, therefore, if there is no compassion in the Blessed One, there would be no loving-kindness and the like for him," he said, beginning with "natthi buddhassa bhagavato mettāti." To the question "ākāruṇiko," not seeing such usage, he rejects it. The rest here is of obvious meaning. Explanation of the Discourse on Compassion. 4.