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
9. More about Endowment.2
Controverted Point.—That a person who is practising in
order to realize Arahantship possesses [as a persistent
distinct endowment] the preceding three fruitions.
From the Commentary.—This discourse deals with the belief, shared
by the Andhakas,
3
that a person as described holds the three Fruitions
as an acquired quality (patta-dhamma-vasena) . It is to be
understood as like that on ' the four Fruits.'
[1] Th.—You say, in fact, that such a person is endowed
with, or possesses four contacts, four feelings, four percep-
tions, volitions, thoughts, four faiths, energies, mindful-
nesses, concentrations, understandings
4
—which cannot be.
[2] Do you make an analogous assertion as to one who
is practising for the Third or Second Paths? An analo-
2
This discourse is practically the same as IV. 4.
3
See Commentary on IV. 7.
4
The five spiritual-sense controls. See above, p. 148, n. 1.
gous parados will apply in that case; and yon must [3, 4]
be able to describe such persons in terms of lower stages,
e.g. one practising for the topmost stage in terms of one
who has only got to the first—which is anomalous.
1
[5] But can a person who is a proximate candidate for
Arahantship be described in terms of a Stream-Winner ?
Can he be both at the same time? Even if he be a Never-
Returner, is he rightly so described when he is in process
of becoming Arahant?
2
[6] Similarly for a candidate for
the Third and Second Fruitions.
[7] Would you not rather maintain that a person prac-
tising in order to realize Arahantship had evolved past
3
the fruition of Stream-Winning ?
[8] Or do you maintain that one so evolved was still
holding that first Fruit [as a distinctive quality] ? For
then you must also hold that he also remains possessed of
those evil qualities which as Stream-Winner he has evolved
out of—which is absurd.
[9-18] A similar argument applies to a proximate'candi-
date for Arahantship (Fourth Fruit) and the Second Path
and Fruit; to such a candidate and the Third Path and
Fruit; to a proximate candidate for the Third Fruit and
the First and Second Paths and Fruits; and to a proximate
candidate for the Second Fruit, and the First Path and Fruit.
[19] U. A.—If our proposition is wrong, surely you would
nevertheless say that a person who is a proximate candi-
date for realizing Arahantship had both won the preceding
three Fruits, and had not fallen away from them?
Th.—Yes, that is true.
U. A.—Surely then he is still possessed of them. [20-21]
And so for candidates in the Third, Second and First Paths.
[22] Th.—Assuming that he is still possessed of the
three Fruits, do you also admit that, having attained to all
four Paths, he is still possessed of all the Paths? Of
course you do not; [there at least you see my point]
1
Cf. above, I. 2, I. 6, and subsequently.
2
I.e., in the Fourth Path, striving to realize its Fruit.
3 See IV..4, 8.
[23, 24], neither do you admit a similar possession in
other candidates.
10. Of putting off the Fetters.
Controverted Point.—That the putting off of all the
Fetters is Arahantship.
From the Commentary. — This is an opinion of the Andhakas—
namely, that Arahantship means the [simultaneous], unlimited putting
off of all the fetters.
1
[1] Th.—By your proposition you must admit that all
the Fetters are put of f by the Path of Arahantship (the
Fourth)—which is not correct, you allow. The proximate
candidate for the Fruit of that Path is not occupied in
again getting rid of the theory o f individuality, doubt, or the
infection of mere rule and ritual, already rejected in the
First Path. Nor [2] in getting rid of the grosser sensuality
and enmity conquered already in the Second Path; nor
[8] of the residual sensuality put away without remainder
in the Third Path. [4] Was not his work pronounced by
the Exalted One to be the putting of f without remainder
of lust for corporeal, and for incorporeal rebirth, conceit,
distraction and ignorance?
2
[5] A.—But if my proposition is wrong, do you not
nevertheless admit that for an Arahant all Fetters are put
off? Surely then I may say that Arahantship is a putting
off all the Fetters ?
1
These were ten vicious states or qualities, to be put away gradually
by progress in the ' four paths,' and not all at' once. See Compen-
dium, 172 f.; Bud. Psy. Eth., pp. 297-303. In the thesis there is no
copula, much less an emphatic one. But the two substantival clauses
are in apposition as equivalents.
2
Dialogues, ii. 98 f .
0 comments:
Post a Comment