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
7. Of the 'Celestial Eye'2
Controverted Point.—That the fleshly eye, when it is the
medium of an idea,3 becomes the celestial eye.
From the Commentary.—This is a view held by the Andhakas
and Sammitiyas.
2
Or vision. The power of apprehending, as visualized, things not
accessible to the sense of sight.
3
Dhammupatthaddang. 'Medium' is, more literally, support,
basis. Dhamma -may stand, as in § 1, for Fourth Jhana, or for the
sensuous idea, or the spiritual idea, according to the context.
[1] Th.—If you affirm this, you must also say lhat the
fleshly eye is the celestial eye, and conversely/ that the
two are like in kind, are, in fact, identical, the one having
the same range, power, and field as the other. This you deny.
[2] Again, i f you make the two thus on a par, you are
affirming that something grasped at [as effect by previous
karma]
1
becomes something not so grasped at, that ex-
perience in the universe of sense is experience in the
universe of 'Rupa,' that experience, analogously reasoning,
in the universe of Rupa is experience in the universe of the
remoter heavens, that the things included in these universes
are 'the Un-included '
2
—which is absurd.
[3] Further, you are, by your proposition, also admitting
that the celestial eye, when it is the medium of a sensuous
idea [in Jhana], becomes the fleshly eye. And, again, that,
when it is the medium of a [spiritual] idea, it then becomes
the eye of understanding—which you must deny.
[4] Further, you are also admitting that there are only
two kinds of vision (or 'eye')• If you deny, your proposi-
tion falls. If you assent, I would ask whether the Exalted
One did not speak of three kinds of vision—the fleshly, the
celestial, and the eye of understanding, thus: ' Three,
bhikkhus, are the modes of sight
3
—which are they? The
fleshly eye, the celestial eye, the eye of understanding ?
' The eye of flesh, the heavenly eye,
And insight's eye, vision supreme :—
These are the eyes, the visions three
Revealed by the man supreme.
The genesis of fleshly eye,
The way of eye celestial,
How intuition took its rise :—
The eye of insight unsurpassed.
Whoso doth come that eye to know,
Is from all ill and sorrow freed.'4
1
See Compendium, 159, n. 6.
2
Cf. Bud. Psy. Eth., xc. ; 254, n. 1.
3
Literally, 'are these eyes.'
4
Iti-vuttaka , § 61.
8 . Of the Celestial Ear.
Controverted Point.—That the fleshly ear, when It is the
medium of an idea, is the celestial ear.
[1, 2] correspond exactly to the same sections in III. 7.
[8] Th.—Further, you are, by your proposition, also
admitting that the celestial ear, when it is the medium of
a [sensuous] idea, becomes the fleshly ear. Further, you
are also admitting that there is only one ear, or sense of
hearing. If you deny, you cannot maintain your pro-
position. If you assent, I would ask whether the Exalted
One did not speak of two ears—the fleshly ear and the
heavenly ear?1
9. Of Insight into Destiny according to Deeds.
Controverted Point.—That the celestial eye amounts to
insight into destiny according to deeds.
From the Commentary.—This is an opinion arising from a care-
less interpretation of the Sutta-passage : ' With purified celestial eye
surpassing that of men he sees beings as they pass aivay from one form
of existence and take shape in another .. . he knows their destiny
as being according to their deeds?2
namely, that the vision of itself
was also an explanation of the things seen.
[1] Th—Your proposition involves this also : that in
the act of vision, attention is also paid to the sequence of
the Karma—which you did not allow. Or, if you do allow
this, you are further implying a combination of two con-
tacts and two consciousnesses—which you do not allow.
[2] Either, I repeat, you refuse to admit, that the act of
seeing with the celestial eye involves judgment:—3 'these
beings, sirs, have plenty of evil deeds, words, and thoughts
in their past:
4
they are accusers of Ariyans, holders of
erratic views, undertakers of actions in conformity there-
with; now that their living frame is broken up, they are
1
Cf . Dialogues, i. 89, and elsewhere, e.g., Majjhima-Nik., ii. 19.
2
Digha-Nik., 82 (Dialogues, i. 91), and elsewhere.
3
Manasikaroti, or attending.
4
Literally, 'are endowed with.' So below.
reborn in purgatory, in the abode of the fallen, the destiny
of evil-doers, a woeful doom; but those folk, sirs, on the
other hand, have plenty of good deeds, words, and thoughts
to their account: the opposite of the foregoing; they are
now reborn in a heaven to a happy destiny'; or, you
accept this implication in celestial sight, and concede that
[in what is really one act of consciousness] there are two
contacts (or mental stimuli) and two consciousnesses.
[3] Again, if there have been those who, without this
celestial vision, without having obtained, arrived at, and
realized it, have had insight into destiny as being accord-
ing to deeds, your proposition cannot stand. [4] The
venerable Sariputta, as you imagine, was such an one.
Did he not say:
' Nor to attain the vision of my past,
Nor for the means to see—the eye clivine—
The mystic power to read the thoughts of men,
Discern decease, rebirth in earth and heaven,
Nor for the ear. celestially attuned
Cared I to strive ' ?1
1
Theragatha, 996, 997. Cf . Psalms of the Brethren, p. 345. The
inference drawn by the translator from the Commentary to that work
tallies with the tradition. But we may conclude that Sariputta, who
stood foremost in wisdom and insight (Anguttara-Nik., i. 23) could,
according to tradition, have exercised those powers, had he cared to.
Of . the contrasted temperament in Moggallana, verse 1182-84. The
verse is cited (a) to dissipate (Comy., lege vikkhepangkaronto )
any misinterpretation through a wrong impression that the Thera
could not had he wished, (b) to refute the opponent on his own ground.
0 comments:
Post a Comment