English
who is freed in time. The explanation of the loss of the attainment of the Sutta is finished. The explanation of the discourse on loss is finished. 3. Discourse on the Holy Life 1. Explanation of the Discourse on the Pure Holy Life 269. It is said, "including the devas who control the creations of others, and above them." But by the statement of the Sutta, "by three things, bhikkhus" (A.N. 9.21), it is understood that even below that, they do not desire the development of the path. 270. It is said, "The rejection refers to the attainment of the path by householders and some devas." But when asked "where there is not," in terms of place, the rejection of it in terms of person is not appropriate. And if this is its meaning, it should not be refuted, being of the same meaning as the proponent's view. 271. "A question with an interval" means a question that alternates between the opponent and the proponent. The explanation of the Discourse on the Pure Holy Life is finished. 2. Explanation of the Discourse on the Harmonized Holy Life 273. Indeed, by the path of the rūpa-sphere, he is born as "one who finishes here." How does this accord with the statement of doctrine beginning with, "Indeed, an Anāgāmī who has developed the path here is called 'one who finishes here'"? This should be considered. Previously, an Anāgāmī was simply called an Anāgāmī. Here, the meaning is an Anāgāmī of jhāna, a Stream-enterer, and so on. Here, one who develops the path to Arahantship and realizes the fruit right here is called "one who attains Nibbāna here." But here, one who develops the path and realizes the fruit there is called "an Arahant who attains Nibbāna there." The explanation of the Discourse on the Harmonized Holy Life is finished. The explanation of the Discourse on the Holy Life is finished. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on "Odhisso" 274. Explaining the meaning of "Odhisso, Odhisso," he says, "part by part." The explanation of the Discourse on "Odhisso" is finished. 4. Explanation of the Discourse on "Jahati" 1. Not heard Explanation of the Story of Taking 280. The state of duty is the abandonment of what is to be abandoned by the three. But if that duty is accomplished by that very path, then the view that lust and ill-will were abandoned already in the state of a worldling is not consistent. Therefore, the meaning is that even for those abandoned in the state of a worldling, when the path of insight arises, since they never arise again, the duty of the three paths is possible. The explanation of the story of taking from the Sutta is finished. The explanation of the story of abandoning is finished. 5. The Story of "Everything Exists" 1. Explanation of the Argument 282. "Everything in the whole body" means that everything exists everywhere, for example, eyes at the back of the head, or feet on the head. "Everything at all times" means everything at all times, for example, youth in childhood, childhood in old age. "In every aspect" means, for example, yellow in blue, red in yellow. "In all phenomena" means, for example, ear in eye, nose in ear. "Unfitting" means speaking what is devoid of connection, and that is a single nature. How can a single nature be devoid of connection? To show this, it says, "for of diverse natures," and so on. For the connection between two diverse natures, like fingers or rams, occurs between them, not with a single one existing by itself. Therefore, what is devoid of the connection that occurs between diverse natures is called "unfitting" for a single nature. "This is asked" means that by taking the wrong view as the view of the opponent, it is stated that one's own view, which has arisen, is a right view. The explanation of the argument is finished. 2. Explanation of the Conjunction of Time 285. "Having abandoned past and future, making only present form unpleasant and indivisible" means that by both the word "present" and the word "form," it is said that only present form is to be spoken of. "Because the designation is not gone" By this, it is understood that "the designation of form is not a designation existing that operates on a naturally defined object, like the designation of an object, but rather a designation that does not exist, operating by taking the aggregate of form that operates in a sequence." therefore, it is proper to say that the state of a thing ceases when its pure state ceases, but not that the state of a form ceases when its present state ceases.” The description of the concordance of time is finished. The description of the purification of statements 288. Here, when it is said, “having been future or present, it is,” it should be understood that the future, having been future, then becoming present, is, and similarly, the present, having been present, having been future before, becomes present, and thus, “having been, it is,” is said. The meaning is that it asks, “Is that also, for you, ‘having been, it is’?” implying an uninterrupted, unceasing state of “having been, it is” because its nature does not cease. “Because, having been, it is not again”: because the future, having been, becomes present, and then, having been future, it does not become present again. Since it is that which, having been, is present, and since, having been future, it becomes present and is designated as “having been, it is,” therefore, it also deserves the statement “having been, it is” a second time—this is the meaning of acknowledging it. However, to one who speaks of the uninterrupted state of “having been, it is” in phenomena, the uninterrupted state of “not having been, it is” would apply to non-phenomena like a hare’s horn—with this meaning, it says, “Then, if not…” and so on. “By the rejected method” means by the difference in time. “By the acknowledged method” means by the difference in meaning. Even one who desires a difference in meaning, how does he acknowledge the state of “it is” said of the future in the present, and the state of “having been” said of the present in the future? This should be considered. For he only allows a difference in meaning, not the present state in the future, or the future state in the present. “By reversing the former rejected question” means that the fault of “having been, it is, having been, it is” was stated in the acknowledged question, so, overcoming the unstated fault, he takes up the rejected question again and challenges with it—this is the meaning. And here, to one who allows “having been, it is” by a difference in meaning, how does the fault arise from the difference in time, that the future is present by rejection? The rejection of that very allowance. This is the meaning. As for "each one," it is said, "each one, not having been, is not; not having been, is not," taking both the future, which does not exist not having been, and the present. It is not that each one alone, not having been, is not; not having been, is not. This method applies to the previous statement, "each one, having been, is; having been, is." For "having been, is" is the name of the future and also of the present. So, taking both names, it is challenged as "having been, is; having been, is," and similarly as "not having been, is not; not having been, is not." This is the meaning. By "as if completely enveloped by darkness," it shows that it should be acknowledged by that which is not enveloped. And here, in the former method, the state of having been, having existed, then again being, is challenged. In the second method, the difference is that "having been, is" is the name of each one among the future and so on. The explanation of the purification of words is finished. Explanation of the discourse on knowledge of the past, etc. 290. Again, being asked... (and so on)... "acknowledges by its existence." Here, it should be considered how the present knowledge is spoken of by "by that," this phrase referring to what is being continued. The explanation of the discourse on knowledge of the past, etc., is finished. Explanation of the discourse on Arahants, etc. 291. The contradiction in reasoning, such as the Arahant being no different from an ordinary person in having defilements, and the celibate life being fruitless, and so on, should be understood. The explanation of the discourse on Arahants, etc., is finished. Explanation of the discourse on the purification of terms 295. For that reason, because the words "past" and "exists" have the same meaning, and because the meaning of the word "exists" is not past, it is said, "the past is not past, and the not past is past." Here, however, this fault applies to the opponent who asserts the existence of the past, etc., but not to one's own side who says, "Nibbāna exists." This should be demonstrated accordingly. The explanation of the discourse on the purification of terms is finished. The explanation of the discourse "Everything exists" is finished. 7. Discourse on "Something exists" 1. Explanation of the discourse on something past, etc. 299. Of the three heaps: those whose results are not ripened, those whose results are ripened, and those whose results are not ripened. In terms of conventional usage, not ripened Speaking of the existence of those without result, how should one be reproved? He considers, "They desire an accumulation of kamma, a mental concomitant, a formation." The explanation of the discussion on "Is there something?" is finished. 8. Explanation of the Discussion on Foundations of Mindfulness 301. "For the purpose of asking about the supramundane nature" means, because right mindfulness is a foundation of mindfulness, both mundane and supramundane, or because it is the ultimate foundation of mindfulness, it is for the purpose of asking about its supramundane nature. "By way of asking about distinctions" means, by way of asking about the distinctions of the foundation of mindfulness,