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
5. Of the Arahant's Indifference in Sense-Cognition.
Controverted Point.—That an Arahant is endowed with
six indifferences.
From the Commentary.—The Arahant is said to be able to call up
indifference with respect to each of the six gates of sense-knowledge.
But he is not in a state of calling up indifference with respect to all
six at the same moment.
1
[1] Th.—In affirming this proposition, you imply that
the Arahant experiences [simultaneously] six contacts
[between sense-organ (and sense-mind) and their objects],
six feelings, perceptions, volitions, . , . insights—which you
deny; that [2] he is using his five senses and mental co-
ordination at [the same instant]; that [3] he, being con-
tinually, constantly, uninterruptedly in possession of , and
made intent with six indifferences, six indifferences are
present to him2
—both of which you deny.
[4] Opponent.—Yet you admit that an Arahant is gifted
with sixfold indifference.3 Is this not admitting my propo-
sition ?
1
In Theravada, sensations, however swift in succession, are never
simultaneous.
2
Literally, 'recur to him?
(paccupatthita).
3
Chalupekkho , a phrase we have not yet traced in the Pitakas.
The six, however, are mentioned in Digha-Nik., iii. 245; Majjhima-
Nik, iii. 219.
6. Of becoming 'The Enlightened' (Buddha) through
Enlightenment (bodhi).
Controverted Point.—That through Enlightenment one
becomes ' The Enlightened.'
1
' From Commentary.—Bodhi is an equivalent for (1) insight
into the Four Paths; (2) insight into all things, or the omniscience of a
Buddha. And some, like the Uttarapathakas at present, [do not dis-
tinguish, but] hold that, as a thing is called white by white-coloured
surface, black by black-coloured surface, so a person is called' Buddha'
because of this or that aspect of bodhi.
2
[1] Th.—If it is in virtue of ' enlightenment' that one
becomes 'The Enlightened,' then it follows that, in virtue
of the cessation, suspension, subsidence of enlightenment,
he ceases to be The Enlightened—this you deny, but you
imply it.
[2] Or is one The Enlightened only in virtue of past en-
lightenment ? Of course you deny this
3
—[then my previous
point holds]. If "you assent, do you mean that one who is
The Enlightened exercises the work of enlightenment by that
past enlightenment only ? If you assent, you imply that
he understands Ill , puts away its cause, realizes its cessa-
tion, develops the Eightfold Path thereto, by that past
enlightenment—which is absurd.
1
It is difficult for those who are not readers of Pali to follow the
intentional ambiguity of the terms in the argument. To the noun
bodh i corresponds the deponent verb bujjhati, to awake, to be
enlightened, to be wise, to know. And buddh o is the past par-
ticiple, One who is buddh o is graduating, or has graduated in the
Fourfold Path. If he become s a mm a sambuddho , supremely
and continually (or generally) enlightened, or sabbannu-buddho ,
omnisciently enlightened, he is then a world-Buddha, saviour of
men. To keep this double sense in view, we have not used ' Buddha'
for this latter meaning.
2
Here (1) and (2) are applied indiscriminately to one and the same
person; again, there is still a sect in Burma who identify the Buddha
with bodhi itself, ignoring his distinctive personality. The Thera-
vadin takes account of both views.
3
'Because of the absence now of that past moment [of enlighten-
ment.']— Comy.
[3] Substitute for 'past,' ' future ' enlightenment, and
the same argument applies.
[4] Let us assume that one is called The Enlightened
through present enlightenment : if you assert that he
exercises the work of enlightenment through present en-
lightenment, you must also affirm [by analogy] that if he
is called The Enlightened through past, or [5] through
future enlightenment, it is by that that he understands Ill,
puts away its cause, and so on—which you deny.
[6] For if an enlightened person, so-called in virtue of
past, or [7] of future enlightenment, does not exercise the
work of enlightenment, through one or the other respec-
tively, then [by analogy] one who is enlightened by present'
enlightenment does not exercise enlightenment through
that present enlightenment—which is absurd.
[8] Do you then affirm that one is called The Enlightened
through past, present, and tuture enlightenment?1 Then
are there three enlightenments-? If you deny, your affirma-
tion [by the foregoing] cannot stand. If you assent,,
you imply that he, being continually, constantly, uninter-
ruptedly gifted with and intent through three enlighten-
ments, these three are simultaneously present to him—-
which you of course deny.
2
[9] U.—But surely one who is called The Enlightened,
is one who has acquired enlightenment ? How is. my pro-
position wrong?
3
[10] Th.—You assume that one is,called The Enlightened
from having acquired enlightenment, or by enlightenment
—is enlightenment the same as the acquiring of enlighten-
ment?
4
1
' This is assented to as being the proper thing to say.'—Comy.
2
Cf. IV. 5, § 3.
3
In that it would mean: a Buddha, in the absence of Bodhi ,
would no longer be a Buddha, a distinct personality. The person is
merged in the concept of Bodhi.—Cf. Comy.
4
The opponent denying, the argument finishes according to. the
stereotyped procedure.
0 comments:
Post a Comment