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
10. Of a Buddha's Everyday Usage.
Controverted Point.—That the Exalted Buddha's ordinary
speech3 was supramundane.4
From the Commentary.—The Andhakas hold that his daily usages
were supramundane usages.
[1] Does this not involve the further statement that his
speech impinged only on the spiritual, but not on the
mundane ear; and that the spiritual, not the mundane,
intelligence responded to it, and thus that disciples alone
were aware of it, not average persons? You do not admit
this. . . . Nay, you know that the Exalted Buddha's
speech struck on the mundane hearing of men, was re-
sponded to by mundane intelligence, and that average
persons were aware of it.
[2] [The terms he used, are they supramundane—]
Path, Fruit, Nibbana, Path and Fruit of Stream-Winning,
Once-Returning, Never-Returning, Arahantship, earnest
3
Voharo refers to common, worldly matters in general, but
reference is confined throughout to speech.
4
Lok-uttara, a wide term meaning all unworldly thought and
ideals, and including supernormal powers of mind, when occupied with
such ideals only. Jhana, e.g., may be lokiya, mundane. The
Opponent over-emphasizes the supernormal side of it.
application in mindfulness, supreme endeavour, steps to
magic potency, controlling power or faculty, force, factor
of enlightenment ?
[8] "Were there any who heard his everyday speech ?
But you deny that a supramundane object is known
by way of the ear, impinges on the ear, comes into the
avenue of hearing. Therefore you cannot affirm that men
' heard ' his everyday speech.
[4] Were there any who were ravished by his everyday
speech ? [We know that there were such.1] But is a
supramundane thing an occasion of sensuous desire, ravish-
ing, entrancing, intoxicating, captivating, enervating ? Is
it not rather the opposite ? . . .
[5] Further, there were some who were offended by his
habitual speech 2
But is a supramundane thing an occa-
sion of hate, of anger, of resentment ? Is it not rather the
opposite ? . . .
[6] Further, there were some who were baffled by his
habitual speech.
3
But is a supramundane thing an
occasion of obfuscation, causing want of insight and
blindness, extinguishing understanding, provoking vexa-
tion, not conducing to Nibbana ? Is it not rather the
opposite'? . . .
[7] Now those who heard the Exalted Buddha's habitual
speech, did they all develop the paths? Yes, you say?
But foolish average people heard him—matricides, too,
and parricides, slayers of Arahants, shedders of holy
blood, schismatics—therefore you are affirming that these
developed the paths! . . .
[8] A.—But you may with one golden wand point out
both a heap of paddy and a heap of gold. So the Exalted
One, with his supramundane habitual speech, habitually
spoke about both mundane and supramundane doctrine.
Th.—It is no less possible to point out both paddy and
1
Cf. Psalms of the Brethren, verse, 1270 ; Dialogues, ii. 16.
2
Cf. Samyutta-Nik., i. 160 ; Digha-Nikaya, Pathika-Suttanta, etc.
3
E.g., disciples were asked to explain concise pronouncements by
the Master (Samyutta-Nik., iv. 93 f., etc.)
gold with a wand of castor-oil wood. So the Exalted One,
with his mundane habitual speech, habitually spoke about
both mundane and supramundane matter.
[9] Now some of you1
say that the habitual speech of
the Exalted One the Buddha was mundane when speaking
to one so conversing, supramundane when speaking to one
so conversing. But this implies that his words impinged
on mundane hearing when he spoke of worldly things, and
on the supramundane hearing when he spoke of supra-
mundane things; also that his hearers understood with
their mundane intelligence in the former case, and with
their supramundane intelligence in the latter; also that
average persons understood in the former case, disciples in
the latter. To which you do not agree.
[10] A—It is wrong then, according to you, to say that
the Exalted Buddha's customary speech was mundane
when he spoke of mundane matters, supramundane when
he spoke of supramundane matters. But did he not use
both kinds of speech? You .assent. Then surely what
you maintain is untenable.
[11] Again, your proposition involves this further ad-
mission : that the speech of anyone becomes that of which
he is speaking—that if you speak of Path, your word
becomes Path; similarly of what is not Path, of Fruit, of
Nibbana, of the Conditioned, of matter, of mind and their
opposites.
0 comments:
Post a Comment