English
it must be concluded here: "There is a Dhamma called Nibbāna." Moreover, in the section on the limited, raising the question: "What Dhammas are immeasurable?"— it was said: "The four paths not included, the four fruits of recluseship, and Nibbāna— these Dhammas are immeasurable." How then would the immeasurability of the destruction of lust, etc., be fitting? Therefore, in the ultimate sense, there truly is a reality called Nibbāna. It is not non-existent like the nature of the naturalists, or the self of the sectarians, or a rabbit's horn. If it is said that Nibbāna is merely a designation, that too is improper. Why? Because the consciousness and mental factors that have Nibbāna as their object do not have a designation as their object. How so? In the section on limited objects, raising the question: "What Dhammas have immeasurable objects?"— it was said: "The four paths not included, the four fruits of recluseship— these Dhammas have immeasurable objects." If their object were a designation, their immeasurable object status would not be fitting; they would fall into the category of having a non-designation as object. "Those with non-designation as object..." The form-sphere triple and quadruple jhānas, whether wholesome, resultant, or functional; the resultant of the fourth jhāna; the sphere of infinite space and the sphere of nothingness, whether wholesome, resultant, or functional—these phenomena are indeed said to be 'not to be spoken of as objects.' Therefore, Nibbana is not merely a designation. And since the nature of Nibbana as a designation is not fitting, therefore, it must be accepted that Nibbana exists, being the object-condition for paths and fruits, permanent due to the absence of arising, etc., formless due to the absence of the nature of form, and non-proliferating due to the absence of proliferation. 772. Utterly endless, peaceful, deathless, unfailing; Sublime, refuge, secure, protection, shelter, ultimate goal. 773. Auspicious, subtle, truth, destruction of suffering, taintless; Very difficult to see, the other shore, Nibbana, unmanifested. 774. Destruction of craving, constant, island, non-afflicting, without calamities; Without attachment, and formless, the immutable, imperishable state. 775. Dispassion, and cessation, liberation, and release itself; But by these names, Nibbana is indeed spoken of. 776. And having thus understood, and Nibbana, the immutable; And the means of its attainment should always be practiced by the wise. 777. Producing faith and wisdom in the Tathāgata's teaching, destroying confusion, Causing the arising and clarity of wisdom— whoever knows this, Rich in meaning and expression, very sweet, causing wonder to those who know the essence, In the deep and subtle Abhidhamma Piṭaka, he reaches the ultimate state. Thus, in the Abhidhammāvatāra, the exposition of Nibbana, named The Eleventh Chapter. 12. The Twelfth Chapter Exposition of Designations Here it is said: "Is this all that is to be known, or is there something else?" There is something called designation. And this is called "designation" because it is to be designated, and because it designates. Therefore it is said: "That which is the reckoning, convention, designation, usage, name, naming, appellation, expression, manifestation, utterance of those various phenomena." Therein, "saṅkhā" means that which is reckoned, the meaning is that which is spoken. How is it... Is it spoken? “I” “mine” “another” “another’s” “couch” “chair” it is spoken in many ways—this is convention. It is designated—designation. It is made known—concept. It is used in speech—usage. How is it used in speech? “I” “mine” “another” “another’s” “couch” “chair.” Thus, it is called concept because it is to be made known. For when “I” is spoken, taking as a basis and depending on the elements of form, etc., and making them a cause, it is not of the nature of those elements of form, etc., which are subject to arising and passing away; rather, it is merely established by worldly convention, this “I” which is spoken and made known—this is concept. Now, to explain concept as that which makes known, it is said: “name, naming,” and so on. There, “name” makes known this or that phenomenon as “this is so-and-so by name.” Therefore, it is called concept. “Naming,” and so on, are synonyms of that very concept. This is concept as that which makes known. This concept is of three kinds: concept by nature, concept by dependence, concept by comparison. There, concept by nature is that which proceeds in the manner of eye, ear, form, sound, earth, fire, wind, and so on. Concept by dependence, however, is of two kinds: by aggregation and by non-aggregation. There, concept by aggregation is that which is spoken, taking the name of one or many of the material and immaterial phenomena, depending on the aggregation itself. How? Distinctions such as tree, chariot, pot, cloth, and so on. This is concept by aggregation. Concept by non-aggregation, however, is of distinctions such as direction, space, time, sign, absence, cessation, and so on. When it illuminates an existing ultimate reality, then it is called “existing concept.” When it illuminates a non-existing mere name, which is of the distinction of aggregation and non-aggregation, then it is called “non-existing concept.” Both of these are known by the mind-door javana consciousness, which has grasped a prior convention immediately after the ear-door javana. By which it is made known by the mind-door javana consciousness, which has grasped a prior convention. Referring to which, “existing concept, non-existing…” designation of the existent, designation of the non-existent by the existent, designation of the existent by the non-existent, designation of the existent by the existent, designation of the non-existent by the non-existent. Thus, the sixfold method is stated. Here, the designation of truly existent things like form, etc., is the designation of the existent. Similarly, the designation of non-existent things like 'woman' or 'man' is the designation of the non-existent. However, apart from the literal meaning, the designation of things not apprehended in any way, like a fifth truth, or of things imagined by sectarians, like primordial matter or a soul, is also the designation of the non-existent. "One with the three knowledges," "one with the six supernormal powers"—such designations are the designation of the non-existent by the existent. "Female sound," "male sound"—such are the designation of the existent by the non-existent. "Eye-consciousness," "ear-consciousness"—such are the designation of the existent by the existent. "Khattiya boy," "Brahmin boy," "monk boy"—such are the designation of the non-existent by the non-existent. Thus, these six designations are also included here. This is called 'designation by appropriation'. Designation by comparison is also a type of this. It proceeds in ways such as: "short by comparison with long," "long by comparison with short." And also in ways such as: "human kingship is wretched by comparison with divine happiness." Therefore, it should be understood as 'designation' because it is to be designated and because it designates. The term 'designation' is complete. 778. Truly, there is designation, a third category does not exist; Skilled in these two points, one does not waver in others' doctrines. Thus ends the section on designation in the Abhidhammāvatāra, the twelfth chapter. 13. Thirteenth Chapter Section on the Penetration of the Agent Here it is said: Wholesome and other states have been defined, but no agent, no self, has been defined for them. Indeed, in the absence of such an agent, a knower, a self, there would be no wholesome or unwholesome states. In their absence, there would be no results dependent on them. Therefore, for the sake of wholesome and other states, Is it meaningless? Here it is said: It is not meaningless. This teaching is meaningful. If, due to the absence of an agent, wholesome states and so on were absent, then that imagined self would also be absent. Why so? Because for that self, there is no other agent. Even without an agent, is there a doer, a self? Then, for wholesome states and so on, even without a doer, their existence must be accepted. Why this agreement there for you, and opposition here? Or again, just as in the world, even without an agent, the arising of sprouts and so on is seen dependent on earth, water, fire, season, and so forth, similarly, it should be understood that these wholesome states and so on arise from the confluence of causes and conditions. Or again, if it is said here that the eternal, permanent self, the doer of wholesome states and so on, imagined by that wisdom, truly exists? Let us examine that first. Is that self, the agent and experiencer, conscious or unconscious? And what then? If it were unconscious, it would be like a wall, a tree, or a stone. It would not be an agent or an experiencer. If it is conscious, is it different from consciousness, or not different? If not different, with the destruction of consciousness, the self would also be destroyed. Why so? Because it is not different from consciousness. Or again, if your intention is this: "The self is not destroyed because of its permanence, only consciousness is destroyed." It is said: If the self is not destroyed, then consciousness is also not destroyed. Why so? Because it is not different from consciousness. If consciousness and self are not different, then to say "only consciousness is destroyed, not the self" is illogical. If there is no special reason for the destruction of consciousness alone, then let the self be destroyed, and consciousness remain. If, with the destruction of consciousness, the self is not destroyed? Then the self would be different from consciousness. If, with the destruction of a different self, it itself is not destroyed, then your assertion