English
There, for those who think that the mindfulness practices and so on taught by the Blessed One, setting those aside, by doing other mindfulness practices and so on, or by making unwholesome things and so on into wholesome things and so on, the doctrine would be called "made new," whether it was done in this way by anyone, whether there is anyone who does this, or whether it is possible to do this—in all three questions, it is said for the purpose of challenge. The rest is to be understood everywhere just as in the Pāli text. Explanation of the Doctrine Discourse. 2. Explanation of the Non-Seclusion Discourse 879-880. Now, there is the Non-Seclusion Discourse. Here, the established view in one's own system is that the person's quality that is presently arisen is called non-secluded from him. But since the qualities of the three realms are not fully understood by the ordinary person, therefore, in a single moment, he is "Hi avivitta" is the doctrine of those, Just like their own. Referring to them is the question of the proponent, The assertion of the opponent. "With contacts," etc., is said To show the fault of all contacts, etc., arising in one moment. The rest is clear in meaning everywhere. Explanation of the Discourse on Non-Separation. 3. Explanation of the Discourse on Fetters 881-882. Now, there is the Discourse on Fetters. Therein, since an arahant does not know all the scope of the Buddha, Therefore, it is assumed that ignorance and doubt are not abandoned in him. So, with the notion, "Is there any fetter unabandoned by attaining arahantship?" Whose doctrine it is, just like the Mahasanghikas, Referring to them is the question of the proponent, The assertion of the opponent. "Is there any personality-belief," etc., is said To show the arahant's abandonment of all fetters. In the two questions, "All the scope of the Buddha," The denial is made due to the arahant's lack of omniscient knowledge, Not due to the non-abandonment of ignorance and doubt. But the opponent, referring to their non-abandonment, Establishes the doctrine with "Then surely..." That establishment, being established unwisely, Remains unestablished. Explanation of the Discourse on Fetters. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on Psychic Power 883-884. Now, there is the Discourse on Psychic Power. Therein, psychic power sometimes succeeds, Sometimes it does not succeed. In making impermanent things permanent, etc., it never succeeds. But in changing a homogeneous continuum Into a heterogeneous continuum, Or in prolonging a homogeneous continuum, For whose sake it is done, Relying on their merit, etc., as causes, it sometimes succeeds, Like making water into ghee and milk for the monks, Like prolonging the continuous existence of lamps, etc., in a great treasure of elements. This is the established view in one's own school. But regarding what the venerable Pilindavaccha Conceived the king's palace as pure gold, Based on that, whose doctrine is "Is there intentional psychic power?" Just like the Andhakas; Referring to them is the question of the proponent, "Is there intentional psychic power?" There, "iddhi by intention" means iddhī by intention, that is, iddhī that succeeds according to intention. "Aamantaa" means an admission to an opponent, standing merely on a doctrine. Then, to challenge him on the eternality of the impermanent, etc., he said, beginning with "May the trees be eternal." The rest here is straightforward in meaning. The establishment of the doctrine, the gold and the jackfruit, came about through the king's meritorious support, not solely through the Elder's intention. Therefore, this is not a valid proof. Explanation of the Iddhi Discussion. 5. Explanation of the Buddha Discussion 885. Now, there is the Buddha discussion. There, setting aside the difference in physical form, the difference in lifespan, and the difference in radiance at different times, there is no superiority or inferiority among Buddhas in terms of the remaining Buddha qualities. But for those whose doctrine is that there is no difference, like the Andhakas, the question "Are there Buddhas?" is for the proponent of his own view, the admission is for the other. Then, to challenge him on the Buddha qualities, he said, beginning with "Mindfulness practices, etc." The other, not seeing superiority or inferiority in terms of these, simply rejects it. Explanation of the Buddha Discussion. 6. Explanation of the All-Directions Discussion 886. Now, there is the all-directions discussion. There, having created his own imaginative skill, that the assembly of world-spheres is in the four directions, below and above, all around, and that there are Buddhas in all world-spheres, for those whose doctrine is "Buddhas exist in all directions," like the Mahasanghikas, the question is for the proponent of his own view, the admission is for the other. Asked about the east, he rejects it with reference to Sakyamuni. Asked again, he admits it with reference to one existing in another world-sphere, according to his doctrine. "What is the name of that Blessed One?" etc., is said for the purpose of challenging, "If you know, tell his name, etc." The meaning should be understood everywhere in this way. Explanation of the All-Directions Discussion. 7. Explanation of the Dhamma Discussion 887-888. Now, there is the Dhamma discussion. There, since forms, etc., are fixed with their own nature of form, etc., and do not abandon that nature, Therefore, those whose doctrine is that all things are fixed, because of that, like the blind men and some northerners; referring to them, the question is from the proponent of his own view, the affirmation from the other. Then, to challenge him, "If they are fixed, would they be fixed in wrongness or fixed in rightness? There is no other fixedness besides this," he said, beginning with "fixed in wrongness." There, the rejection and the affirmation are from the opponent. "Form is fixed by the nature of form," etc., was said to challenge him based on the meaning by which he says it is fixed. Here, the intention is this: "Form is fixed by the nature of form," meaning form is only form, not of the nature of feeling, etc.; it should be stated with this intention, not otherwise. Why? Because there is no form other than the nature of form. The nature of form is the nature of form, and the nature of form is only form, not different from form. But this expression is used to make known its difference from feeling, etc. Therefore, by saying, "Form is fixed by the nature of form," it is said that form is fixed. And what is fixed would be either fixed in wrongness or fixed in rightness; there is no other fixedness besides this. Then, why does he affirm? Because of a different meaning. For here, in "Form is fixed by the nature of form," the meaning is that form is only form, not of the nature of feeling, etc. Therefore, he affirms. But since there is no fixedness for him otherwise, he said again, beginning with "fixed in wrongness," to challenge him in the same way. All that is obvious in meaning. Therefore, the view that there is form is unstable, since it is established unwisely. Explanation of the Discourse on Things. 8. Explanation of the Discourse on Action 889-891. Now, there is the discourse on action. There, those whose doctrine is that all actions are fixed, because of this, "Since actions ripening in this very life, etc., are fixed by the nature of actions ripening in this very life, etc.," like those same people; referring to them, the question is from the proponent of his own view, the affirmation from the other. In "fixed by the nature of actions ripening in this very life," "actions ripening in this very life are actions ripening in this very life." Just so. If it can give result in this very life, it gives, if not, it is called ineffective action, with reference to this meaning is the proposition of the proponent of his own doctrine. But this is uncertain depending on the rule of wrongness and rightness, and all should be understood in the same way as stated below. Explanation of the Discourse on Action. The Twenty-first Chapter. 22. The Twenty-second Chapter 1. Explanation of the Discourse on Final Emancipation 892. Now, there is the Discourse on Final Emancipation. There, "Since an Arahant, in the sphere of omniscience, is finally emancipated without abandoning the fetters, therefore, there is some fetter not abandoned for final emancipation," whose doctrine it is, just like the blind; with reference to them is the question of the proponent of his own doctrine, the proposition of the other. The rest here is in the same way as stated below. Explanation of the Discourse on Final Emancipation. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on Wholesome Thought 894-895. Now, there is the Discourse on Wholesome Thought. There, since an Arahant, having attained fullness of mindfulness, even while finally emancipated, is finally emancipated mindful and fully aware, therefore, he is finally emancipated with a wholesome thought, whose doctrine it is, just like the blind; with reference to them is the question of the proponent of his own doctrine, the proposition of the other. Then, since a wholesome thought is so called because of the accumulation of merit, etc., therefore, to challenge him with that meaning, he said, "Is an Arahant accumulating merit?" The rest here is resolved according to the text. "Mindful and fully aware" is said to indicate death without delusion by way of the active mindfulness and full awareness in the moment of impulsion, not to indicate wholesome thought. Therefore, it is not probative. Explanation of the Discourse on Wholesome Thought. 3. Explanation of the Discourse on the Imperturbable 896. Now, there is the Discourse on the Imperturbable.