English
there is no word for determination. If there were, the commentator, intending the meaning of determination for that word, would have said, “excluding the dominion-field in these three fields, this world-system,” and so on. No. Therefore, the meaning of locus alone should be taken for that word. And previous teachers have interpreted that word in the sense of a locus. And similarly, in the Abhidhamma-ñāṇavibhaṅga Pāḷi, and its commentary, and in the Bahudhātu Sutta Pāḷi of the Uparipaṇṇāsa, and its commentary, and in the Netti Pāḷi, and its commentary, that reason has been stated. In the Aṅguttara Ṭīkā, however, it is said: “But as for ‘do not arise,’ my teacher does not say ‘there is.’ ‘There is no one equal to me,’ and so on. When the Blessed One, speaking while staying in this world-system, was asked, ‘But now, friend Sāriputta, is there any other ascetic or brahmin who is equal to the Blessed One in perfect enlightenment?’ and I would say, ‘No, venerable sir,’ the Dhamma-senāpati, in order to show the reason for that, cited this Sutta: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen, that two Arahants, Perfectly Self-Enlightened Ones, should arise in one world-system, without a predecessor or a successor.’ By this, it is meant that their non-arising elsewhere is stated, excluding this world-system, which is the Buddha-field.” And similarly, it is stated in the Ñāṇavibhaṅga Mūlaṭīkā and in the Uparipaṇṇāsa Bahudhātu Suttaṭīkā. And here, by the phrase “their non-arising elsewhere is stated, excluding this world-system,” it is meant that in other infinite world-systems beyond this world-system, which is the Buddha-field, there is non-arising. The non-arising of Buddhas in finite world-systems is shown. For "elsewhere," even though said in general, by what is stated in the commentary, "in these three realms," by the proximity of other words, the special meaning of infinite world-systems should be understood. For even a word of general meaning, by the proximity of other words, is specific in its scope. Herein is another method. In what is said in the commentary: "Buddhas indeed, when arising, arise in this very world-system." But when the place of arising is denied, that they do not arise in other world-systems than this, is indeed denied. In this sentence, the particle "eva" firmly placed in "imasmiṃyeva" (in this very) has the meaning of exclusion and emphasis. By this, the arising of other Buddhas in other infinite world-systems is excluded. Even if indeed other Buddhas were to arise in other infinite world-systems, if this were so, our Blessed One, knowing and seeing all phenomena with the distinction of conditioned and unconditioned, would be said thus: "In other world-systems other Buddhas arise." No. For the statement that Taṇhaṅkara and others, the twenty-eight Fully Enlightened Ones, arise in other world-systems from this world-system, is not in the Tipiṭaka, the Buddha's word, nor in the commentaries and sub-commentaries. Therefore, it should be understood that other Buddhas do not arise in other infinite world-systems from this world-system. And this is said in the commentary to the Suttanta Mahāvagga, in the explanation of the Mahāsamaya Sutta: "Then it occurred to him: 'Only a Buddha like me could.' 'Is there, however, another Buddha anywhere?' Having spread his infinite knowledge in infinite world-elements, looking, he did not see another Buddha. And this is not strange, that he would not now see one equal to himself. He who, even on the day of his birth, in the manner stated in the commentary to the Brahmajäla Sutta, not seeing one equal to himself, uttered an unassailable lion's roar: 'I am chief of the world!' Thus, not seeing another equal to himself, he thought." Just so is this. And in the commentary to the Mahāniddesa on the Purābhedasutta, and in the sub-commentary to that Mahāsamaya Sutta, in one world-element. And according to what is stated in the Sutta, indeed everywhere, two Buddhas do not exist simultaneously, not before and not after. Therefore it is said, it explains: "in infinite world-systems... (etc.)... did not see." And in the Apaṇṇaka Jātaka Commentary, it is said: "The Teacher, having delimited the disciples below to Avīci and above to the highest existence, said that in immeasurable world-systems there is no one equal to the Buddha in virtues such as morality. How much more superior (is he)... (etc.)... he said." And in these two commentaries, "in infinite world-systems" and "in immeasurable world-systems" are stated by the words "infinite" and "immeasurable". And by these two words and by the Tīkā's statement, it shows the non-arising of other Buddhas in infinite world-systems. But in the Sammohavinodanī Commentary's explanation, by "among these" and so on, it is made known that Buddhas do not arise in other world-systems beyond the hundred thousand koṭi world-systems. But we reflect thus. If the meaning of "in another world-system" is taken as "in all other three Buddha-fields beyond this world-system," then it is understood that Buddhas do not arise in other world-systems beyond the hundred thousand koṭi world-systems. But if "in another world-system" is taken to mean "in another world-system that is a field of birth and authority beyond this one," then it is understood that Buddhas might arise in other world-systems beyond the hundred thousand koṭi world-systems. And by the Pāli passage beginning, "It is impossible, it cannot be, that two Arahants, Fully Self-Awakened Ones, should arise in one world-system," and by its being stated together with the Pāli passage beginning, "It is impossible, it cannot be, that two Wheel-turning Kings should arise in one world-system," it would be that just as Buddhas do not arise beyond the hundred thousand koṭi world-systems, so too a Wheel-turning King would not arise in another world-system. And in the Kathāvatthu treatise, the arising of Buddhas in other world-systems beyond the hundred thousand koṭi world-systems is not denied. Therefore, our view is that a Buddha might arise in another world-system beyond the hundred thousand koṭi world-systems that constitute the field of authority. An investigation. It is said: "having placed, having taken." And here, what is said in the Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa, "...and not refuted," that is not in the Kathāvatthu Pāḷi itself. But in this "Discourse on All Directions," there is only the hypothetical statement of the opponents. Therefore, it is said in that Pāḷi: "Buddhas stand in all directions. Yes. Does a Buddha stand in the eastern direction? It should not be said so... Does a Buddha stand in the eastern direction? Yes. What is the name of that Blessed One, what is his birth, what is his clan, what are the names of the mother and father of that Blessed One, what is the name of the pair of chief disciples of that Blessed One, who is the attendant of that Blessed One, what kind of robe does he wear, what kind of bowl does he carry? In what village, or town, or city, or district, or country? It should not be said so," and so on. But in its commentary, it is said: "Now there is the discourse called 'All Directions.' There, having created their own speculative skill that there is a Buddha in all world-systems, in the four directions, below, and above, that is, all around the arrangement of world-systems, and that 'Buddhas stand in all directions' for those... just like the Mahāsaṅghikas, referring to them, is the question of the Sakavādī (Theravādin). The admission is by the other. When asked 'in the eastern direction,' he rejects it, referring to Sakyamuni. When asked again, he admits it, referring to one who stands in another world-system by way of acceptance. 'What is the name of that Blessed One?' and so on, is said with the meaning of a challenge: 'If you know, tell him by way of his name, etc.' By this method, the meaning should be understood everywhere." And here, "in the four directions... just like the Mahāsaṅghikas," by this, it shows the doctrine of the opponents. There, the construction is: "there is an arrangement of world-systems all around, in the four directions, and below, and above." "For those... Mahāsaṅghikas" means "whose doctrine is that of the opponents." "Like whose doctrine?" The meaning is: "just like the doctrine of the Mahāsaṅghikas." "Referring to them" means "referring to those individuals who are opponents." The meaning is: having held by command, having reflected. The question of the proponent is: The question is whether Buddhas stand in all directions for the proponent. The admission of the opponent is: It is the acknowledgment of the other party. When asked by the proponent, "In the East?" When asked by the proponent, "In the East?" and so on. Referring to Sakyamuni: Referring to our Gotama Buddha, who was born of the Sakya clan of Kshatriyas. The opponent rejects it. Again, when asked by the proponent, "Does a Buddha stand in the East?" By way of his view: The opponent acknowledges, by way of his false view that there is a Buddha in another world-system and that he arises. If, however, a Buddha stands in another world-system, In that case, to show the challenging statement of the proponent, "You tell his name, lineage, etc.," he says, "What is the name of that Blessed One?" and so on. By this, he shows the non-existence of other Buddhas in other infinite world-systems apart from this world-system. Therefore, it is said in the Kathāvatthu Pāḷi: "What is the name of that Blessed One? What is his clan? ... and so on ... in what country? It should not be said thus." And here, when asked by the proponent, "What is his name?" and so on, the opponent, not knowing and not seeing the names, etc., of the Buddhas arising in all world-systems according to his doctrine, rejects it, saying, "It should not be said thus." Therefore, here, according to the doctrine of the proponent, the non-arising of other Buddhas in other infinite world-systems is understood.