English
, is not to be known or believed by us,” it was said: “therefore he said… …anugīti.” There, by that investigable nature of the aforementioned questions, etc., the Venerable Mahākaccāna said: “that which was asked… …anugīti,” and so on. By that statement, it is said that the investigable nature should be known and believed by you. Because it should be asked: “is the investigation, the method, of the aforementioned kind complete, or is there something else that should be determined and applied?” it was said: “the investigation method is applied.” There, the investigation of questions, the investigation of answers, the investigation of prior and subsequent, the investigation of anugīti, and the investigation of the discourse are distinctly divided in their nature. The intention is that the remaining investigations, such as the investigation of delight, should also be determined and applied appropriately. Thus, in the analysis of the method of investigation, this explanation, composed according to one’s strength and ability, is completed. However, by the wise, the profound meaning should be divided and understood in detail according to the commentaries and sub-commentaries. 3. Explanation of the Method of Reasoning 18. By which particular method of investigation, which is a special kind of exposition, the words and problems, etc., were investigated, that method of investigation, which is a special kind of exposition, is complete. Because it should be asked: “what is the method of reasoning?” it was said: “there, what is the method of reasoning?” and so on. There, “there” means among those sixteen methods that were indicated, which special kind of exposition is the method of reasoning, the method of reasoning… asked, "What is it?" It should be understood that the detailed exposition, now being explained, such as "this is the reasoning method," of the instruction beginning "of all methods," is called the "Exposition of the Reasoning Method." Therefore it was said, "What is the reasoning method here? This is the Exposition of the Reasoning Method." This reasoning method asks what kind of sutta meaning it connects by way of right and wrong. The sutta meaning, however, is twofold: meaning grasped incorrectly, and meaning grasped correctly. Among these, the meaning grasped incorrectly should be connected by determining the true reasoning. The other should be connected simply by stating the facts. Since this search for reasoning, which is an exposition, cannot occur without the great authorities, therefore, in dividing the reasoning method, he first states its characteristic, saying, "There are four great authorities." Here, "great authorities" are reasons stated by referring to great ones like the Buddha, or they are great foundations of the Dhamma. That which is referred to is an authority. The Buddha is the authority for this reason, hence "Buddha-authority." The same method should be applied to the others. The meaning is that a great authority is a criterion for judgment, which is the Dhamma if a text brought forth with the statement, "This sutta was heard by me directly from the Buddha," corresponds with the Sutta and Vinaya, and is the non-Dhamma if it does not correspond. The words and meanings of a text brought forth with the statement, "I brought this directly from the Buddha, I brought this directly from the Sangha, I brought this directly from many elders, I brought this directly from one elder," should be inserted into the sutta taught by the Blessed One, and should be compared and correlated with the Vinaya, the discipline of passion, etc. They should be included in the Dhamma. If they are not in conflict with the meaning of the sutta, the meaning of the Vinaya, and the Dhamma, then the words and meanings you have brought forth are correct. The meaning is, they are to be taken after being stated by those who determine policy. The teacher said they are to be brought down into, to be shown in, to be placed in the Suttas, Vinaya, and Dhamma-nature. Because it is to be asked, "In which Sutta? In which Vinaya? In which Dhamma-nature?" Therefore, "In which Sutta?" and so on was said. There, "in the four Noble Truths" means in the Suttas that show the four Noble Truths. "That by which lust is destroyed and calmed, such as the unlovely" is the destruction of lust. What is that? The sign of the unlovely and so on. That has this, so it is the destruction of lust. Who is that? The particular Sutta that shows the sign of the unlovely and so on. This method applies to the destruction of hatred and so on. "Dependent Origination" means that which, avoiding the views of eternalism and annihilationism, by explaining the method of oneness and so on, shows the nature of dependent origination of ignorance and so on, and formations and so on. Therefore it was said, "In which Dhamma-nature are they to be placed? In Dependent Origination." Because it is to be asked, "What does it not generate when it descends into, is seen in, and does not contradict the Suttas and so on?" Therefore, "in the four" and so on was said. There, the meaning to be seen is: If the text brought forth, having said, "This was brought forth by me in the presence of the Buddhas and so on," descends into the four Noble Truths, then the text brought forth does not generate defilements. If it is seen in the destruction of lust and other defilements, then the text brought forth does not generate defilements. And if it does not contradict the Dhamma-nature, then the text brought forth does not generate defilements. Because it is to be asked, "Why are the four Great Authorities brought forth in the section on reasoning and analysis?" Therefore, "by the four Great Authorities" and so on is said. There, whatever meaning, whatever Dhamma in the text brought forth is consistent with the four Great Authorities, that meaning or that Dhamma is to be taken into the Sutta to be commented upon. And by whatever reason it is consistent with the four Great Authorities, that reason is to be taken into the Sutta to be commented upon by way of explanation. In whatever way it is consistent with the four Great Authorities, that way It should be taken in a Sutta that is to be explained by way of explanation. This means that the four great authorities are brought forth for such a taking. 19. The Teacher said that the various meanings that are consistent and connected with the four great authorities should be taken. Since it might be asked, "Where and by whom should the determination of reasoning be made?" it was said, "by the questioner," and so on. The determination of reasoning should be made by the person who asks the question in the problem. Here, "problem" refers to the nature of a phenomenon that is to be understood. "By the questioner" refers to a wise person capable of answering. "Problem" refers to the text that arises from questioning. How many and what kind of words are there? First, the words should be analyzed, investigated, and examined by means of reasoning. Since it might be asked, "How should it be investigated?" it was said, "If all," and so on. Here, "all words" refers to all the words in the questioned text without remainder. If they express one single meaning, then there is one problem in terms of meaning. This method applies to the rest as well. Therefore, it was said, "because of the desire to know that one meaning" (Netti. Aṭṭha. 19). "One" refers to a problem that is of one kind in terms of meaning. It should be known firmly by the person who is examining it. Since it might be asked, "What is the mode of knowing?" he shows the mode of knowing by saying, "Are these phenomena," and so on. Here, the explanation is that "the Dhamma texts that are to be explained, are these Dhamma texts of different meanings, or are they of different expressions, or do these Dhamma texts have one meaning, and only the expression is different?" This should be known by investigating with reasoning. Since it might be asked, "What would the aforementioned problem be like?" to show a part of the aforementioned problem, he asked, "Like what would it be?" and then said, "Like that," and so on. In that question verse— By what Dhamma is the world of beings always afflicted, like a thief struck down by a man who is a thief-killer? By what Dhamma is it overwhelmed, like a creeper surrounding and covering the tree it depends on? By what is the world of beings always surrounded, overwhelmed, pierced and entered as if by a poisoned arrow? By what arrow is the world of beings always pierced and entered? For what reason, by what cause, is the world of beings always smoking and burning? This is the interpretation. Since it should be asked: "How many words are in this question verse?" it is said: "These are..." There, the questioned words are four. Since it should be asked: "How many problems?" it is said: "These are three problems." Because the Blessed One answers the deity, from that answering, "three problems" is understood. Since it should be asked: "Which is the answering verse?" it is said: "The world is smitten by death, surrounded by old age; pierced by the arrow of craving, always smoking with desire." This is the interpretation of that answering verse: Just as a thief is smitten by a thief-catcher, so is the world of beings always smitten by death. Just as a tree is surrounded and overwhelmed by a creeper that clings to it, so is the world of beings always surrounded and overwhelmed by old age. Just as one is pierced and entered by a poisoned arrow with a barbed tip, so is the world of beings always pierced and entered by the arrow of craving. The world of beings is always smoking and burning with desire. 20. Since it should be asked: "What is death, what is old age?" it is said: "There, old age..." There, in that, refers to the three answering verses. The old age mentioned in the second line and the death mentioned in the first line