English
among the populace with its deities and humans, meditates with a mind that relies on nothing anywhere, and thus, in the world with its deities... ...among the populace with its deities and humans, it is not known by anyone. Therefore it is said: Homage to you, O thoroughbred among men, Homage to you, supreme among men; Whom we do not know, On what do you rely as you meditate? Because it should be asked, "By which Sutta should the state of being unknown by anyone be clarified?", "Just as Māra the Evil One," and so on, was said to show that it should be clarified by this Godhika Sutta. In the Commentary, however, it is said, "Now, to clarify the unreliant state of the Arahant's mind on anything, by the Godhika Sutta and the Vakkali Sutta, 'Just as Māra,' and so on, was said." There, Māra is so called because he kills or obstructs those who perform meritorious deeds like giving, or he obstructs merit itself, or he kills one's own welfare and the welfare of others. He is the Evil One because he has evil thoughts. After the parinibbāna of the young man named Godhika, who was a killer of iguanas in a previous existence, Māra, searching for his consciousness, rebirth, and so on, does not know or see it. Because it should be asked, "Why does Māra, who knows the minds of others, not know?", "He indeed," and so on, was said. Because that Godhika is beyond proliferation, and because for this Godhika there is no reliance on views due to the abandonment of craving, therefore he does not know. Because it should be asked, "It should be clarified only by the Godhika Sutta," "And just as," and so on, was said. Because it should be said, "The unreliant state of the Nibbāna element without remainder has been clarified by the Godhika Sutta and the Vakkali Sutta; if this is so, by whom is the unreliant state of the Nibbāna element with remainder known?", "By the world with its devas," and so on, was said to show that even then it is not known. There, the connection should be made thus: "These Arahants, meditating with the jhāna of fruition attainment on the Nibbāna element with remainder, meditate with minds unreliant on anything, and thus are not known by the world with its devas, by Māra... by the world with its devas and humans." Here, the negative particle "na" (not) in "anissitacittā na ñāyanti" (minds unreliant are not known) does not connect with the word "jhāyamānā" (meditating). "Not meditating," because the meaning is possible. But "they are not known" should be connected, as it was said below in the commentary, "it is not known by anyone in the world." This is the connection of teachings. Just as the connection of the Godhika Sutta and the Vakkali Sutta is determined by their meaning, and by the teaching "not relying on earth" and so on, and by the teaching "not relying on this world" and so on, by which teaching a connection is determined by meaning. By that teaching, the meditator does not meditate relying on anything anywhere. The meditator meditates relying on Nibbāna. This is determined by meaning. This connection is called the "connection of teachings." This meaning should be understood. The connection of teachings was divided by the teacher, and known by us. Because it should be asked, "What is the connection of designation?" it was said, "Among them, what is the connection of designation? Those with dependent minds," and so on. "Among them" means, among those four: connection of meaning, connection of expression, connection of teachings, connection of designation. The connection designated as "connection of designation," what is it in terms of designation? This is what is asked. "Those with dependent minds" means those ordinary people whose minds are dependent, either by being conjoined with craving and views, or by way of strong support. Ordinary people should be designated by this teaching because it is based on individuals. If the teaching is based on phenomena, then "those with dependent minds" means the sections of the Sutta where the dependent mind is taught, for the purpose of knowing the dependent mind. "Those with independent minds" means those noble individuals whose minds are independent. Noble individuals should be designated by this teaching because it is based on individuals. But for a teaching based on phenomena, "those with independent minds" means the sections of the Sutta where the independent mind is taught, for the purpose of knowing the independent mind. Because it should be asked: "By what designation should those with dependent minds be designated? By what designation should those with independent minds be designated?" It was said: "Those with dependent minds should be designated by the unwholesome side," and so on. It is said: It should be indicated by an indication of the unwholesome side. The same method should be applied to "the wholesome side," and so on. To show it by general unwholesome and wholesome sides, and then by specific unwholesome and wholesome qualities, "dependent thoughts with defilement," and so on, is stated. This is the connection of indications. This connection, where the former indication of the unwholesome side, and so on, is connected with the latter indication of defilement, and so on, by means of dependent thoughts, is called the connection of indications. And this connection, where the former indication of the wholesome side, and so on, is connected with the latter indication of purification, and so on, by means of independent thoughts, should be understood by division. Since it might be asked, "How are we to know and believe that the four-fold method should be divided by the distinctions of linguistic meaning, intention, cause, and the connection of prior and subsequent, as well as by the distinctions of meaning-connection, text-connection, indication-connection, and teaching-connection?" Therefore, "then he said," and so on, is stated. There, it is said that by that statement which the Venerable Mahākaccāna made, "linguistic meaning," and so on, (Netti. 4, Summary of Methods) concerning that way of division, you should know and believe that the four-fold method should be divided in that way. Since it is said, "By this much, the four-fold method is complete; there is no other application," "the four-fold method is applied" is stated. There, it should be understood that in whatever Pāli text whatever four-fold division is found, that four-fold method is applied according to what is available, and in that Pāli text, that four-fold division, that four-fold method, is thus determined, applied, and utilized. Thus, the elucidation composed according to the strength of my understanding in the division of the four-fold method is completed. However, scholars should take the profound meaning by dividing it extensively according to the commentaries and sub-commentaries. 7. Elucidation of the Āvaṭṭa Method Division 29. By whichever special descriptive division of the four-fold method the linguistic meanings, and so on, are divided, that... (rest omitted)... division of the four-fold method The analysis is complete. Because it is to be asked, "Which is the revolving analysis of method?", there it is said, "Which is the revolving method?" and so on. There, "there" means among those sixteen methods of teaching and so on that have been indicated, "which particular mode of explanation is called the revolving method, the analysis of the revolving method?" he asks. For the instruction beginning "In one basis", the particular extensive mode of explanation beginning "Strive!" which is now being spoken by me, is taken as the analysis of the revolving method. Because it is to be said, "There, in the teaching, when the teaching has ascended to one basis, it seeks out the remaining basis, and having sought it out, how does it revolve it in the opposite direction?" – Strive! Go forth! Engage in the Buddha's teaching; Shake off Mara's army, As an elephant a reed-hut. This verse was spoken. Here, in this verse, it is said that when the teaching has ascended to one basis, it seeks out the remaining basis. However, the meaning of the verse is explained in the commentary (Netti. Aṭṭha. 29). Because it is to be said, "In the verse beginning 'Strive!', when the teaching has ascended to which basis, which remaining basis does it seek out?", it is said, "Strive! Go forth! is the basis of energy," and so on. There, although it is said generally "the basis of energy", it should be understood that the energy called the element of striving is the basis for the energy called the element of going forth; the energy called the element of going forth is the basis for the energy called the element of exertion; the energy called the element of exertion is the basis for the energy accompanied by tranquility development, and so on, which should be sought out. The energy accompanied by tranquility development, spoken of by "Engage!", is the basis for the exalted concentration spoken of by "in the Buddha's teaching"; the remaining bases, such as happiness, to which the teaching has ascended, should also be sought out. The energy accompanied by insight, taken by the phrase "Shake off Mara's army", is the basis for wisdom capable of shaking off defilements; the remaining bases to which the teaching has ascended... The remaining causal conditions, such as concentration, should also be sought. If the energy mentioned as "strive" and so on were only the causal condition for the energy, concentration, and wisdom that are common to all, then it would be asked, "How will they cut off the root of the cycle and reach the unconditioned?" Therefore, it is said again, "Strive, exert yourselves, this is the causal condition for the faculty of energy." It is said that because it is the causal condition for those who are energetic, who are fit for the task of mastery, the yogis who strive cut off the root of the cycle and reach the unconditioned.