English
Explanation of the decline of the Sutta's establishment 265. In the Puggalapaññatti Aṭṭhakathā, it is said that "attainment, contact" means direct realization, as it states, "He speaks of what is to be attained, meaning worthy of contact." 267. For one who has made a resolve: meaning, for one who has made a determination "I will achieve something else in this week, month, season, or during the rainy season." The explanation of the decline of the Sutta's establishment is finished. The explanation of the decline is finished. 3. The Holy Life 1. Explanation of the Pure Holy Life 269. Even below: meaning, even below the Paranimmitavasavatti devas. It is understood that they do not desire even the development of the path, as it is stated by "the dwelling of the holy life here" that "there are no two dwellings of the holy life among devas, according to what is understood." 270. Of that very one: meaning, of the opponent. By way of individuals: meaning, by way of individuals, such as "for householders and some devas." Of that one: meaning, of the opponent. The rejection is not proper: meaning, the intention is that the explanation of the meaning by way of individuals is not proper. However, an explanation of the meaning made with reference to individuals is delimited by occasion, so this is not a fault. This is his intention: if this is the intention of that opponent, stated by "for householders and so on," then by such a perception, the opponent would be on equal terms with the proponent, and thus not deserving of censure. Therefore, he says, "his...etc....should be." But it should be understood that he should first be allowed, and then censured by rejection. Some say: "Where there is no going forth, there is no dwelling of the holy life"— this is the opponent's rejection in response to the question, referring to the penetration of the path by some humans. Even if he does not desire the attainment of the path by devas, the Aṭṭhakathā says "householders" in order to show all that is possible. having said, 'and of some deities,' they say it was spoken," that is not good, because it was said "with reference to," the former meaning is appropriate. The explanation of the Pure Celibacy Story is finished. 2. The Explanation of the Conjoined Celibacy Story 273. By the path of the form realm means by the jhāna of the form realm. For this is called a path because it is a means to rebirth in the form realm. As it is said, "he cultivates the path to rebirth in the form realm." This means this jhāna of the form realm. How does the statement that illuminates "this path of the form realm, which is the cause for dwelling here and attaining Nibbāna" and so on, agree with "the path cultivated here" and so on, which illuminates the nature of the non-returner's path? To show how it agrees, "but formerly" and so on was said. There, by "formerly," they mean "the path cultivated here" and so on, and here too, "by the path of the form realm" and so on. There, only a non-returner means only one who has attained the fruit of non-return. A jhāna-non-returner means that even one who has not eradicated the internal fetters, having been reborn in the form realm, cultivates the path of non-returning and attains Nibbāna right there. The intention means the intention that illuminates the non-contradiction of the two commentarial statements as explained. Here means in the sense realm. There means in the Brahma realm. And here, the opponent should be asked thus: "The Sutta 'By three things, monks' - should it be taken according to its literal meaning, or was it spoken with reference to something?" There, knowing, he would say it was spoken with reference to something. Otherwise, it would not be possible to say "referring to the Paranimmita-vasavatti deities" and so on, because "and the Tāvatiṃsa deities" was said. Just as in "just as having consulted with the Tāvatiṃsa deities" and so on, it is possible to refer to Sakka, the king of deities, and among the sense-realm deities, the Tāvatiṃsa deities are well-known and prominent, so their inclusion means that they alone are not intended, and the meaning of the Sutta passage as spoken with reference to something must be accepted. Similarly, in "dwelling in celibacy here," the support of blameless happiness, happiness free from affliction, happiness of renunciation, and so on. The going forth in the Dispensation, which is of great fruitfulness by nature, is intended in this Sutta as “the living of the holy life here.” Indeed, it is difficult and rare for the Uttarakurū people and for devas, due to their lack of opportunity. There, even by the turning of the sun and so forth, the existence of devas for the attainment of the path should be made clear, but the non-attainment of special qualities by the Uttarakurū people is desired by both. The description of the holy life in terms of comparison is finished. The description of the holy life is finished. 3. Description of “Odhisota” “Odhisota” means in parts, meaning by a part. Since a part is a portion, it is said “by a portion, by a portion.” There, if the abandoning of the group of defilements, which belongs to the origin-side, by the four parts, in terms of the four paths, is intended as “abandoning in parts,” this is indeed desired by our own school, from the saying “by the destruction of the three fetters, by the abandoning of wrong views,” and so forth. But since the path is active by way of different penetrations of the four truths, not by way of a single penetration— this is the doctrine of the other school— therefore, just as it is desired that the path proceeds in the truths by way of different moments, as in “the path discerns suffering at one time, abandons the origin at another time,” and so forth, so too, each one might proceed by different moments. If that were the case, to show that it discerns and abandons only a portion by a portion of suffering and so forth, it is said in the Pāli text “stream-entry… and so forth… abandons in a portion.” For if there were different penetrations, there would be a portion-by-portion abandoning of the three fetters and so forth, to be abandoned by the first path and so forth, by the seeing of suffering and so forth, and thus there would be a portion-by-portion stream-entry path-attainment and so forth, and from that, a portion-by-portion stream-enterer and so forth would arise, due to the immediate fruitfulness of supramundane wholesome states, and that is not proper. For without a distinction in time, it is not possible to understand that one is both a stream-enterer and not a stream-enterer. Therefore, it is said, “a stream-enterer in a portion, not a stream-enterer in a portion,” and so forth. Moreover, this proponent of different penetrations should be asked thus: “Does path-knowledge know the truths Does it penetrate by way of object, or by way of function? If one were to say by way of object, then the complete severance and eradication of suffering and its origin, as in the case of insight knowledge, would not be appropriate, because it is not released from that. The same applies to the vision of the path. For it is not proper that it should operate by taking itself as an object. If one were to postulate another path, it would lead to an infinite regress. Therefore, the three truths are penetrated by way of function, and cessation is penetrated by way of function and by way of object. Thus, for one who penetrates without confusion, there is no separate comprehension of the path knowledge. For it has been said: “Whoever, monks, sees suffering, he also sees the origin of suffering,” and so on. And this was not said with reference to seeing at different times. “Whoever, friends, sees suffering, he also sees the origin of suffering, and also the cessation of suffering… and also the path leading to the cessation of suffering” (Saṃ. Ni. 5.1100). This was brought forth by the Elder Gavampati to establish that meaning, when considering the state of one endowed with the vision of one truth being endowed with the vision of other truths, and the vision of the three truths being applied individually. Otherwise, if what was seen before were not seen again, the application of seeing suffering, etc., to seeing the origin, etc., would be inappropriate. For the supramundane path does not operate like the mundane path by way of having done something, because it is an eradicating agent. And if it were applied in that way, all seeing would be dependent on another seeing, and there would be no end to seeing. Thus, since separate comprehension is impossible according to scripture and reason, it must be concluded that there is no individual abandonment of the paths. The explanation of the section on individual abandonment is concluded. 4. Explanation of the Section on Abandonment 1. Explanation of the Section on Not Citing Suttas 280. Although it is said in the Pāli text, “one develops the three paths,” knowing that the development of the path is only for the purpose of eradicating defilements, he says, “the reality of the function is that what is to be abandoned has been abandoned by the three.” Here, “by the three” means that the internal fetter that is to be abandoned by the three lower noble paths has been abandoned. The meaning is, they cut off. And that is the task, the task of understanding the abandonment of the path with regard to the lower fetters. By that very path, that is, by the non-returner's path. This does not fit, meaning, the assertion of the doctrine that lust and ill-will are abandoned even before the arising of the path, does not fit or is not consistent with this statement of the path's task. Therefore, this refers to the aforementioned contradiction. Abandoned, meaning, suppressed. For whoever is an attainder of jhāna, and by jhāna suppresses defilements, and by the path cuts them off, he is intended here. Therefore it is said, "by the path of seeing...