Points of Controversy
OR
Subjects of Discourse
BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE KATHAVATTHU
FROM THE ABHIDHAMMA-PITAKA
BY
SHWE ZAN AUNG, B.A
AND
MRS. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A
BOOK IV.
1. As to whether a Layman may be Arahant.
Controverted Point.—That a layman may be Arahant.
From the Commentary.—This concerns the belief of those who, like
the Uttarapathakas, seeing that Yasa, the clansman's son, and others
attained Arahantship while living amid the circumstances of secular
life, judge that a layman might be an Arahant. Now the meaning
in the Theravadin's question refers to the spiritual 'fetters' by which
a layman is bound. But the opponent answers 'yes,' because he
sees only the outward characteristics. Now a layman is such by the
spiritual fetter, and not merely by the outward trappings, even as the
Exalted One said:
' Though he be finely clad, if he fare rightly,
At peace and tamed, by right law nobly living,
Refrain from scathe and harm to every creature;-
Noble is he, recluse is he and bhikkhu !'1
[1] Th.—You say the layman may be Arahant. But
you imply therewith that the Arahant has the layman's
fetters. 'No,' you say, 'they do not exist for him.' Then
how can a layman be Arahant ? [2] Now for the Arahant
the lay-fetters are put away, cut off at the root, made as
the stump of a palm tree, incapable of renewed life or of
coming again to birth. Can you say that of a layman ?
[3] You admit that there was never a layman who, [as
such] without putting away his lay-fetters, made an end
in this very life of all sorrow. [4] Is there not a Suttanta
in which the Wanderer Vacchagotta addressed the Exalted
One thus: 'Is there now, O Gotama, any layman who,
1 Dhammapada, ver. 142. 'Layman' is literally house, house-
holder (gihi).
without having put away the layman's fetters, makes at death
an end of Ill?' [And to whom the Exalted One said :] ' Nay,
Vacchagotta, there is none ' ?1
[5] Again, in affirming your proposition, you imply
that an Arahant may carry on sexual relations, may suffer
such matters to come into his life, may indulge in a home
2
encumbered with children,
2
may seek to enjoy sandalwood
preparations of Kasi, may wear wreaths, use perfumes and
ointments, may accept gold and silver, may acquire goats
and sheep, poultry and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses and
mares, partridges, quails, peacocks and pheasants,3 may
wear an attractively swathed head-dress,
4
may wear white
garments with long skirts, may be a house-dweller all his
life—which of course you deny.
[6] U.—Then, if my proposition be wrong, how is it
that Tasa of the clans, Uttiya the householder, Setu the
Brahmin youth, attained Arahantship in all the circum-
stances of life in the laity?
5
2. Of [Arahantship as conferred by] Rebirth [alone].
Controverted Point.—That one may become Arahant at
the moment of rebirth.
From the Commentary.—This question is raised to elicit an opinion of
the Uttarapathakas. They namely had come to the conclusion that at
the very outset of reborn consciousness, one might be an Arahant,
they having either carelessly applied the Word,
4
becomes born without
parentage in the higher heavens and there completes existence,'6 or,
1
Majjhima-Nik., i. 483.
2
Literally couch. With this and the next four clauses, cf . Milinda,
ii. 57, 244 of the translation. Also above, p. 112 f.
3
Kapinjala , -jara , we have not met with elsewhere. It may
mean ' dove.'
4
Read citta -, as in footnote, PTS.
5
The inference is that the layman, under exceptional circum-
stances, may attain Arahantship, but to keep it, must give up the
world.
6
Digha-Nikaya, iii. 132 and elsewhere.
converting the word 'upahacca ' into 'uppajja,' and changing
the meaning, ' completed existence during the second half of the
term,'1
into 'completed existence on being reborn.'
[1, 2] Th.—You affirm this proposition; yet you deny-
that one can become at birth either a Stream-Winner,
Once-Returner, or Never-Returner.
[3] And you can name none—not even the greatest—
who were Arahants from the time of birth—Sariputta, or
the Great Theras: Moggallana, Kassapa, Kaccayana,
Kotthika or Panthaka. [4] You deny it in fact of all of
them.
[5, 6] Consider our consciousness at rebirth: it arises
because rebirth has been desired.2 Now such a mind is
worldly, co-intoxicant . . .3 corrupt. Can it realize
Arahantship ? Is it of the kind that is called forthleading,4
that goes toward extinction,5 enlightenment, disaccumula-
ting,4 is free from intoxicants . . . and corruptions ? Can
one by it put away lust, and hate, delusion . . . indiscretion?
Is it the Ariyan Path, the applications of mindfulness and
the rest of the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment ? Can
it understand Ill , put away its cause, realize its cessation,
develop the path thereto ? All this you, of course, must deny.
[6a] Or is the last act of consciousness at death the
realization of the Topmost Path (of Arahantship) and the
ensuing act of consciousness at rebirth the Fruit of that
Path (or full realization of Arahantship) ? You deny again.
Then your proposition is proved false.
1
Samyutta-Nik., v. 201, etc.; Anguttara-Nik., i. 233, f. , etc.
'Completes (-ed) existence' is parinibbayi , have become com-
pletely extinct, passed utterly away—a climax only effected by an
Arahant.
2
Literally, 'Does one by a rebirth-seeking consciousness realize,' etc.
3
For these elisions, not ours, in the text, see above III. 3, § 7.
4 See p. 148, n. 5.
5
Khayagami , either of lust, hate, delusion (Samyutta-Nik., iv.,
251, or of the conditions of rebirth).
0 comments:
Post a Comment