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
8. Of the Arahant's Common Humanity.
Controverted Point.—That all that belongs to the Arahant
is devoid of intoxicants.
From the Commentary.—It is an opinion of the Uttarapathakas
that everything about or belonging to an Arahant, he being devoid
of intoxicants,
1
is free from these.
[1] Th.—The things devoid of intoxicants are the Four
Paths, the Four Fruits, Nibbana, and the [thirty-seven]
factors of enlightenment; but these do not constitute every-
thing belonging to an Arahant. [2] His five sense-organs,
for instance, you do not call free from intoxicants
2
—hence
your proposition falls through.
[3] His body, again, is destined to be seized and coerced,
3
cut of f and broken up, and shared by crows, vultures,
and kites—is anything 'free from intoxicants' to be so
described ?
[4] Into his body poison may get, and fire and the
knife—is anything 'free from intoxicants' to be so
described?
His body may get bound by captivity,
4
by ropes, by
chains, may be interned in a village, town, city, or pro-
vince, may be imprisoned by the fourfold bondage, the fifth
being strangling5
— is anything 'free from intoxicants'
liable to this ?
[5] Moreover, if an Arahant give his robe to a man of
the world, does that which was free from intoxicants
thereby become co-intoxicant? You may admit this in
general terms, but do you admit that that which is free
from intoxicants may also be the opposite ? If you say
'yes,' then, by the analogy of the robe,anything else
about the Arahant — his religious characters: Path,
1 The Asavas or cardinal vices were in the Abhidhamma reckoned
as four : sensuality, rebirth (lust after), erroneous opinion, ignorance.
2 'Co-intoxicant' is an essential of rupa, or material quality.
3
Paggaha-niggahupago , 'liable to be raised, lowered.'
4
Addubandhanena.
5
For kanha read kantha. See I . 6, § 48.
Fruit, etc.—having been free from intoxicants, may become
co-intoxicant. [6] The analogy may also be based on the
gift of food, lodging, or medicine.
[7] Or, conversely, i f a man of the world give a robe or
[8] other requisite to an Arahant, does that which is co-
intoxicant become thereby the opposite ? Does that which
has been co-intoxicant become free from intoxicants—lust,
for instance, hate, delusion . . . indiscretion [such as beset
and characterize the man of the world] ?
[9] U.—You condemn my proposition. But is not the
Arahant free from intoxicants ? If he is, then I say that
everything connected with him is so.
4. Of [the Retaining of Distinctive] Endowments.
Controverted Point.—That one who realizes a fruition re-
tains the attributes thereof after realizing a higher fruition.
From the Commentary.—There are two kinds of spiritual acquisi-
tions, namely, acquisition at the present moment and acquisition
accruing at rebirth hereafter. But some, like the Uttarapathakas,
believe that there is one other, namely, the holding of past acquire-
ments as a permanent acquisition1
in some Rupa or Arupa heaven.
The latter kind is retained as long as the Jhanie achievement has not
.spent its force.' The Theravadin view is that there is no*such quality,
but that all personal endowments are only held, as distinct acquisitions,
.until they are cancelled by other acquisitions.
[1, 2] Th.—You say, in fact, that an. Arahant is endowed
with all the Four Fruits, a Never-Returner with three, a
Once-Returner with two. Then you must also admit that
.an Arahant is endowed with four contacts, four feelings,
four perceptions, four volitions, four thoughts, four faiths,
-energies, mindfulnesses, concentrations, understandings;
1
Pattidhammo. An Arahant is the resultant of his earlier
spiritual victories, but these are transcended and cancelled by subse-
quent attainments. Nothing is permanent. Spiritual growth is
analogous to physical growth. The heterodox view is that of a
.transference of something persisting. Cf . with this discourse, IV. 9.
T.S. V.
the Never-Returner with three of each, the Once-Returner
with two of each—which you must deny.
1
[3] Again, if an Arahant is endowed with the first
fruition, the second, and the third, he must be one of
whom the characteristics of all three classes of the first,
of the second, and of all five classes of the third stages
are true.
2
Then he would be rightly described as in one
and all at the same time—which is absurd. [4] The
same argument holds for those who have realized the
Third and the Second Fruit.
[5] Again, you admit that one who is endowed with
the Fruit of Stream-Winning is rightly called ' Stream-
Winner.' But is the same person both Stream-Winner and
Arahant ? Similarly for the two other fruitions. [6] Simi-
larly, is the same person both Never-Returner and Stream-
Winner, or both Once-Returner and Never-Returner?
3
[7] Would you not admit that the Arahant had evolved
past
4
the Fruit of the First Path? Yes, you say; then
you cannot maintain your proposition ;
[7-18] Because, if you are to maintain consistently that
the Arahant is yet endowed with that Path and that Fruit
out of and past which he has evolved, you must further
ascribe to him all those corruptions out of which the Stream-
Winner evolves—which is absurd. Similarly for the other
Paths and Fruits. And similarly for the Never-Returner
and the Once-Returner.
[19-21] U—But if it be wrong to say that an Arahant is
endowed with four Fruits, not one, a Never-Returner with
three, not one, a Once-Returner with two, not one, do you
deny that the Arahant has acquired four Fruits and has
not fallen away from them, the Never-Returner three, and
so on? You do not deny this. Hence it is right to say :
They ' are endowed with' four, three, two Fruits.
1
The 'Fruit' or fruition is one psychic act, in which the whole being
is engaged. This act 'informs' the next, etc., but does not itself persist.
2
See pp. 77, 78.
3
A clause omitted in the PTS edition.
4
Vitivatto, vi-ati-vatto , a way-beyond-turned; ' in-trans-
volved' for ' e-volved,' our 'in ' having, like vi, a double import. Cf.
with this argument, III. 4.
[22-4] Th.—I grant they have acquired them, and have
not fallen away from them. But I say that, if you affirm
that they are endowed with the Fruits, you must no less
affirm a fortiori that they are endowed with the respective
Paths. [But by pushing the argument a step further, we
have seen that you were landed in the absurdity of
ascribing corruptions to saints.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment