English
To show a question with multiple bases, as it is to be said, "How is the analysis that is worthy of division in questions and answers with multiple bases understood by us? Explain that analysis for our understanding," - "Streams flow everywhere, (thus said the Venerable Ajita,) What is the restraint for the streams? Tell me the control of the streams, by what are the streams dammed?" (Sutta Nipāta 1040; Cūḷaniddesa, Vatthugāthā 59, Ajitamāṇavapucchāniddesa 3) - He spoke the verse. The meaning of the verse should first be seen. "Savanti" means they flow, they proceed. "Sabbadhi" means in all sense bases such as forms, which are the objects of craving and so on. "Sotā" means the streams of craving, covetousness, ill-will, and so on. "Iccāyasmā" means thus said the Venerable Ajita. "Sotānaṃ" means of the streams of craving, covetousness, ill-will, and so on. "Kiṃ nivāraṇaṃ" means what kind of dhamma-state would be a covering, what kind of dhamma-state would be a protection. "Sotānaṃ saṃvaraṃ brūhi" means tell us, for the welfare of all beings, what dhamma-state is the control, the covering, of the streams of craving, covetousness, ill-will, and so on. What do you say? By what are the streams stopped? By what abandoning quality are the streams of craving, covetousness, ill-will, etc., stopped by the wise? Thus, it is asked. Because it should be asked: “In the verse beginning ‘they flow…pe…they are stopped,’ which was spoken in the manner of a question, how many words were questioned, how many problems?” It was said: “These four words were questioned, they are two problems.” Because it should be said: “If there are four words in this verse, which arose in the manner of a question, then the problems would also be fourfold, why is it said ‘two’?” It was said: “Why? For these were questioned with many meanings.” These meanings grasped by this verse were questioned with many meanings. This is what is meant: “Focusing on many words like ‘they flow…pe…they are stopped,’ only these two meanings were questioned: mindfulness, which is called restraint, and wisdom, which is the cause of stopping. Therefore, in terms of meaning, two problems are stated.” Because it should be said: “How is the two-fold nature of the question’s object stated?” To clarify the two-fold nature of the question’s object, “for one thus afflicted,” etc., was said. There, “for one thus afflicted” means: this world of beings is afflicted, overwhelmed, equally, together, or in every way, by these misfortunes that are causes of suffering, such as the destruction of relatives, or by misfortunes such as the taking of life; or for one thus overwhelmed. “For one thus defiled” means: this world of beings is defiled by the ten defilement-objects that arise from the destruction of relatives, etc., or from the taking of life, etc.; and for such a defiled world. What kind of dhamma would be the purification, the rising up, for the afflicted, overwhelmed world? Thus, this is the detailed meaning, as stated in the Ajita Sutta: the two-fold nature of the question’s object should be known. Because it should be asked: “Do the streams flow everywhere for all the world, or only for some?” It was said: “The streams flow everywhere, they flow for the unrestrained.” is said to be for one who is full of covetousness, ill-will, and heedlessness. Here, it should be understood that because of being full of covetousness, ill-will, and heedlessness, streams flow and proceed for one whose mind is scattered among various objects like forms, but not for one who is concentrated, free from covetousness, ill-will, and heedlessness. Because it is to be stated “What is covetousness? What is ill-will? What is heedlessness?” “Therein, that which is covetousness…” and so on, is said. Therein, therein means among those covetousness, ill-will, and heedlessness. That which is covetousness, this is greed, not merely wishing. And greed is a root of unwholesomeness, not merely being greedy. That which is ill-will, this is hatred, not merely being hostile. And hatred is a root of unwholesomeness, not merely harming. That which is heedlessness, this is delusion, not merely a lapse of mindfulness. And delusion is a root of unwholesomeness, not merely being deluded. Thus, in this way, because covetousness and so on are roots of unwholesomeness, for one who is full of covetousness, ill-will, and heedlessness, for one who is unconcentrated, craving flows in the six sense-bases like forms and so on. Because it is to be stated “How many kinds is that craving?” “Craving for forms… and so on… craving for mental objects” is said. Because it is to be stated “By what word should we believe that the six streams of craving for forms and so on flow in the six sense-bases like forms and so on?” “As the Blessed One said…” and so on, is said. “It flows, O monks… and so on… it is obstructed,” the meaning is that you should believe by that word in the manner in which the Blessed One said it. And here, the six streams of craving for forms and so on, being present as doors for the eye and so on, the eye and so on are said by the Blessed One as if they themselves were flowing by way of dependence and proximity. Thus, in this way, in the manner stated, it flows and proceeds from every door of the eye and so on. In every way, in all manners, by way of craving, wrong aspiration, elation, and so on, it flows and proceeds; this is the meaning. “Why does it flow and proceed from every door of the eye and so on, in all manners, by way of craving, wrong aspiration, elation, and so on, it flows and proceeds, the nature of the forest should be known, thus it is said, "therefore he said," and so on, is stated. There, "therefore" means the Blessed One, who knows the arising of streams, because for one who is not composed, greed and ill-will, etc., flow through the eye and other doors, in the manner of craving, wrong views, and rising up, and thus flow by way of craving, etc., said, "streams flow everywhere." "What is the dam for the streams?" By this, what is asked? Does it ask for the abandonment of latent tendencies of the streams? Or does it ask for the abandonment of transgressions? Thus it is said, "What is the dam for the streams?" It asks for the suppression of defilements, it is said. "Is this suppression of defilements purification, or is it emergence?" Thus it is said, "this is purification." "Tell me the restraint of the streams, 'by what are the streams dammed?'" By this, what is asked? Does it ask for the defilements of the streams? Or does it ask for transgression, or for eradication? Thus it is said, "the streams... by what are they dammed?" It asks for the eradication of latent tendencies, it is said. "Is this eradication of latent tendencies purification, or is it emergence?" Thus it is said, "this is emergence." The analysis of the question, "streams flow everywhere," etc., was stated by the teacher, and understood by us. Regarding that question, "what is the analysis of the answer?" Thus it is said, "there, the answer," and so on, is stated. There, in the question: "Whatever streams there are in the world, (Ajita, said the Blessed One,) Mindfulness is their dam; I tell you the restraint of the streams, by wisdom are they dammed." (Sutta Nipāta 1041, Cūḷaniddesa, Vatthugāthā 60, Ajitamāṇavapucchāniddesa 4) This verse should be seen as the answer. In that verse, the connection should be made: "Ajita, whatever streams flow in the world, the dam for those streams is mindfulness; I tell you that mindfulness is the restraint of the streams; these streams are dammed by wisdom." There, "mindfulness" means mindfulness associated with insight-wisdom. "By wisdom" means by path-wisdom. "Are dammed" means they are dammed in the sense of not being allowed to arise. are cut off. “Mindfulness is their prevention, I say, the restraint of the sense-streams,” the Blessed One said. “Is the restraint of the sense-streams accomplished by any kind of mindfulness, or is the restraint of the sense-streams accomplished by a special kind of mindfulness, by what kind of mindfulness is the restraint of the sense-streams accomplished?” Because it was to be asked, “by mindfulness directed to the body,” etc., was said. There, “by mindfulness directed to the body” means by mindfulness accompanied by insight-knowledge, which arises from discerning the body of form, such as hair, etc., as impermanent, etc. “Cultivated” means cultivated by way of contemplating the body as impermanent, as suffering, as non-self, as leading to dispassion, as leading to fading away, as leading to cessation, as leading to relinquishment. For thus, contemplating as impermanent, one abandons the perception of permanence; contemplating as suffering, one abandons the perception of pleasure; contemplating as non-self, one abandons the perception of self; being dispassionate, one abandons delight; fading away, one abandons lust; ceasing, one abandons origination; relinquishing, one abandons grasping. “Made much of” means made much of in the manner described, for a day, a month, a year, seven years. “Eye” refers to the eye which stands as the door for the arising of covetousness, etc.; the meaning should be understood from the commentary. “Does not draw in” means the mental continuum accompanied by covetousness, etc., which arises at the eye-door, or it does not draw in the person endowed with it; the meaning is to be connected as “it does not draw in to agreeable forms.” In disagreeable forms, it is not repelled. By mindfulness directed to the body, cultivated, made much of, the ear does not draw in. The connection “in agreeable sounds… and in disagreeable sounds it is not repelled” should be made as far as possible. “For what reason does it not draw in or is not repelled?” he asks. “Because the faculties are restrained and prevented, it does not draw in, it is not repelled,” he answers. “By what protection are they restrained and prevented?” he asks.