English
That wisdom of full understanding which has occurred, that is the wisdom of development. "That which is unconditioned is to be realized." That wisdom of full understanding which has occurred, that is the wisdom of realization. Having thus connected... The meaning that is not contradictory to the intention of the commentary should be taken. The five kinds of wisdom, such as higher knowledge, were explained by the teacher and understood by us. Because it is to be said, "What is the person who knows with those full understandings called and praised?" therefore, "who indeed" and so on was stated. There, the person who knows in the manner thus stated, this knowing person, because of being skilled and expert in phenomena arisen from causes, is called and praised as "skilled in meaning"; and because of being skilled in causal phenomena, as "skilled in Dhamma"; and because of being expert in the suitability of the four methods, such as unity, as "skilled in auspiciousness"; and because of being expert in the attainments of fruition, as "skilled in fruition"; and because of being expert in growth, as "skilled in gain"; and because of being expert in non-growth, as "skilled in loss"; and because of being expert in the cause of the arising of a situation capable of remedying that task or fear when an urgent task or fear arises, as "skilled in means"; and because of being endowed with mindfulness and clear comprehension in great undertakings and so on, is called and praised as "endowed with great skill." Because it is to be said, "How is the skill of that trainee in meaning and so on to be believed?" therefore, "thus he said" and so on was stated. Because it was said, "Skilled in all phenomena," this is the intention that it should be believed. The meaning of the phrase "Skilled in all phenomena" was explained by the teacher and understood by us. Because it is to be said, "How is the meaning of the phrase 'The mindful monk should wander' understood in detail by us?" therefore, "The mindful monk should wander" and so on was stated. Or else, "The mindful monk should wander" was said by the Blessed One. Because it is to be asked, "Where, endowed with mindfulness-accompanied knowledge that has arisen, for what purpose should the mindful one wander?" therefore, showing by determining, "Endowed with mindfulness-accompanied knowledge that has arisen in these, the mindful one should wander for this purpose," he said, "The mindful monk should wander" and so on. There, by that (monk), who is the mindful trainee monk endowed with mindfulness-accompanied knowledge that has arisen in undertakings and so on... , therefore, by the trainee-free monk, whose training is completed, having no other purpose, for the sake of a pleasant abiding in this very life, when going forth… by silence, with mindfulness, with understanding, with knowledge, one should abide, one should maintain the abiding consisting of the four postures. Because it is to be asked, “The path of trainees and non-trainees that has been taught, how many kinds are these paths of trainees and non-trainees in brief?” to show that these practices, called paths, are two in brief, according to individuals, it is said, “These are two practices,” and so on. There, the practice that has been taught, whether by way of wholesome states to be cultivated, or by way of skill in purpose, or by way of mindfulness and clear comprehension in going forth, etc., these practices are two, taught by the Blessed One by way of permission, one practice for the purified Arahants, one practice for the trainees who are purifying themselves, thus, they are to be understood as two according to individuals. Because it is to be said, “Why is only the non-trainee praised, ‘mindful he goes forth,’ and so on, and also the noble ordinary person is praised, ‘mindful he goes forth,’ and so on?” Therefore, it is said, “Their tasks are done,” and so on. The Arahant’s faculties have completed their tasks. Because the faculties have completed their tasks, whatever question is to be asked, all of it should be understood by the comprehension of suffering in four ways… should be understood by the realization of cessation. This fourfold understanding to be understood, the non-trainee who has attained fullness of mindfulness knows it by way of comprehension and so on. This non-trainee is directly praised, “Mindful he goes forth for the destruction of lust, for the destruction of hatred, for the destruction of delusion, mindful he returns.” The trainee also knows the aforementioned understanding to be understood by way of his own comprehension and so on. Therefore, it is to be understood that he is praised, “Mindful… of delusion.” Thus it is said, “Who are purifying themselves? Trainees.” Why is there the state of going forth, etc., with mindfulness and clear comprehension for trainees and non-trainees, and the destruction of lust, etc.? that it should be believed. Thus it was said: “Therefore the Blessed One said: ‘A mindful monk should wander.’” “The Blessed One’s every bodily action is preceded by knowledge,” and so on. The teacher has indicated: the absence of craving for pleasant sense objects, the mind’s undisturbed state regarding unpleasant sense objects, skillfulness in all phenomena, and wandering endowed with mindfulness and clear comprehension. “Why should we believe this absence of craving and so on?” Because it should be asked, it was said: “Therefore he said: ‘In sense objects… …a mindful monk should wander.’” In this verse too, the analysis of questions and answers should be understood according to the method stated previously, in terms of the one-basis and other phenomena bases. In the analysis of the Investigation Method, the Ajita Sutta was extracted, and the analysis of questions and answers was divided by the teacher, and understood by us. “What is the analysis of questions and answers in other suttas?” Because it should be asked, to show that questions and answers should be extracted from other suttas according to the method of question and answer analysis in the Ajita Sutta, and the analysis of questions and the analysis of answers should be applied, it was said: “Thus should one question, thus should one answer.” In the Commentary, however, it is said: “Thus far, the Great Elder, dividing the Investigation Method, has shown the analysis of questions and the analysis of answers by means of the Ajita Sutta. Now, showing the method of the analysis of questions and answers in other suttas, he says: ‘Thus should one question, thus should one answer.’” There, “thus” means: according to the analysis of questions stated in the Ajita Sutta, one should extract the sutta that proceeds by way of questions and divide the analysis of questions. Similarly, according to the analysis of answers stated in the Ajita Sutta, one should extract the sutta that proceeds by way of answers from other suttas and divide the analysis of answers. Pucc The analysis of what is to be rejected was explained by the teacher, and understood by us. Since it is to be asked, “What is the analysis of the sutta’s अनुगीति (anugīti - subsequent recitation/explanation)?”, it was said, “and the sutta’s anugīti,” and so on. Therein, “of the sutta” means of the extracted sutta. “Anugīti” means the anugīti, which is the teaching of another sutta. It should be made similar, in meaning and in expression. That is, that anugīti should be made similar, identical, in meaning and in expression, to the sutta to be explained. Or, when that sutta is being explained, the anugīti should be made similar to the sutta’s meaning and expression. Since it is to be asked, “If it is not similar in meaning, what fault would arise?”, it was said, “Indeed, an expression devoid of meaning becomes idle talk.” The fault of dissimilarity in meaning was stated, and understood by us. Since it is to be asked, “But if it is not similar in expression, what fault arises?”, it was said, “Even the meaning of a wrongly placed word and expression becomes difficult to understand.” Therefore, because of its faultiness, the anugīti or the sutta should be recited with meaning and expression. The analysis of anugīti was explained by the teacher, and understood by us. Since it is to be asked, “What is the analysis of the sutta?”, it was said, “and the sutta,” and so on. Therein, “and the sutta” means and the determined sutta. It should be investigated: “Is this determined sutta a direct utterance spoken by the Blessed One, or is it a connective utterance spoken by those who recited it?” It should be investigated: “Is this determined sutta of explicit meaning, or of implicit meaning?” It should be investigated: “Is this determined sutta conducive to defilement, or conducive to purification?” It should be investigated: “Is this determined sutta conducive to penetration, or conducive to the unconditioned?” Having investigated thus, if it be a direct utterance, then having determined it as “direct utterance,” it should be taken. If it be a sutta of the unconditioned, then having determined it as “sutta of the unconditioned,” it should be taken. This is the meaning of “understood.” Having investigated the sutta, all the truths that are the meaning of the sutta, having determined, “in what place should they be seen?” because it should be asked, setting aside the question, to show “in this place they should be seen,” it was said: “where are all of this discourse… …at the end?” There, “of this discourse” means the discourse that has been chosen to be investigated. Since there is no meaning of the discourse apart from the four noble truths in this discourse, it means that all the truths should be seen at the beginning, middle, and end of that very discourse. Concluding the aforementioned investigation of the discourse, he said: “thus should the discourse be investigated.” Because it should be said: “the investigable nature of the aforementioned questions, etc.