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
BOOK II
1. Of Conveyance by Another.
Controverted Point.—That an Arahant has impure dis-
charge.
From the Commentary. — This was asked concerning a notion
entertained by the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas. These had noted
seminal discharge among those who professed Arahantship in the belief
that they had won that which was not won, or who professed Arahant-
ship, yet were overconfident, and deceitful. And they wrongly
attributed to devas of the Mara group the conveyance, to such, of an
impure discharge. This leads to the second question, since even a
pure discharge is caused by passion.
[1] Th.—You contend that he may have. Yet you deny
that in the Arahant there remains any lust, sensuous
desires or assailing passion, any 'fetter,' 'flood,' 'bond,'
or ' hindrance of sensuality.' But this denial commits you
to negate your proposition.
[2] You admit that the average worldling may have both
the one and the other, both the desires and the physical
result. But then you must also admit both as true in the
case of the Arahant.
[3] What is the cause of that physical impurity which
you impute to the Arahant ?
p, —The devas of the Mara group convey it to the
Arahant.
Th.—Have then these devas themselves that physical
impurity?
P. A— No, in them it is non-existent.
Th.—Then you should not say that they convey it to
the Arahant. [4] From whom do they convey it? Not,
you affirm, from their own bodies, nor from the Arahant
himself, nor from other beings [which is absurd]. [5] You
deny also that they effect the conveyance through the pores
of the body. Then you should also deny that they convey
it at all. What [do you allege] is the reason of their con-
veying it ?
p. A.—Their idea is: 'we shall cause doubt as to his
attainment to be laid hold of.'
1
Th.—Is there doubt in an Arahant ? If you reply 4
No,'
then your argument falls through. Or i f you reply ' Yes,'
then must you herein admit that an Arahant may hold
doubts about the Teacher, the Doctrine, the Order, the
ethical training, the beginning and end of time—either or
both—and about things as happening through assignable
causes—which is absurd. [6] The average man holds
doubts about such things, but an Arahant does not [else is
he like the average man]. Or i f both hold doubts not on
any of these eight points, but on other matters,
2
then
again the Arahant is no better than the average man.
[7] Granting your proposition, to what is the impurity
due ? You reply, to eating, drinking, chewing, tasting. But
you deny that the proposition is true of all who eat, drink,
chew, taste. Or, i f you maintain the opposite conclusion,
you must admit that children, eunuchs, devas eat, drink,
etc., yet that the proposition is not true in their case.
[8] Nor can you refer to any specific repository for that
impurity which you call a result of eating, drinking, etc.,
similar to that which is provided for the natural results of
eating, drinking, etc.
[9] If your proposition were true, then the Arahant
would pursue and produce things relating to sexual inter-
course, live a family life, use Kasi sandalwood preparations,
1
Vimating gahayissamati . A Singhalese v.l. has gahis -
samati .
2
' Such as the name, family, etc., of a given woman or man, and
the like.'—Corny. The 'eight points' constitute a stock formula even
up to the present. See ' Some Points in Buddhist Doctrine,' by Ledi
Sadaw, JPTS, 1913-14, p. 119. Bud. Psy. Ethics, § 1004.
adorn himself with wreaths, perfumes, and cosmetics,
hoard gold and silver, like any average man, concerning
whom your proposition were true. [10] But how can it
be true of the Arahant who, as you admit, has put away
passion, has cut it of f at the root, and made it as the
stump of a palm tree, made it incapable o f rising up again
in future renewal ?—of the Arahant who has treated in
like manner hate, ignorance, conceit, error, doubt, sloth,
distraction, impudence, and indiscretion ?
[11, 12] How, again, should it be true of one who, like
the Arahant, has cultivated the means for the putting away
of passion, etc., and all the other factors o f enlightenment.
1
[13] How should it be true o f one who, like the Arahant,
has [consummated as having] done with lust, done with
hate, done with nescience, by whom that which was to be
done is done, by whom the burden is laid down, by whom
the good supreme is won, and the fetter of becoming is
wholly broken away, who is emancipated through perfect
knowledge, who has lifted the bar, has filled up the
trenches, is a drawer-out, is without lock or bolt, an
Ariyan, of one for whom the banner is lowered, the burden
is fallen, who is detached, conqueror o f a realm well-
conquered, who has comprehended 111 , has put away the
to be understood, comprehended that which is to be compre-
hended, put away that which is to be put away, developed that
-which is to be developed, realized that which is to be realized?
2
[14-20] Do you still maintain your proposition ?
P. A.—Yes, but only in the case of an Arahant who is
proficient in his own field, not of an Arahant who is
proficient in other things.
3
1
These are enumerated under heads in the test as above, I. 2, § 47.
2
See II., §47 (p. 67).
3
This curious distinction is explained by the Corny, as that between
-the Arahant who is 'freed by reason' (pannavimutto ) and one
who is freed by the ' eight attainments' (or stages in deliverance),
or who is 'freed both ways.' See Dialogues, ii. 69, 70. The modified
position may be compared with a similar recourse above, p. 68.
T.S . v .
Th.—But how can "you maintain it in the one case
without admitting it as true in the other? [15] The
former has the qualities and requisites of Arahantship
no less than the other; both have equally put away
passion, and so on.
[21] How can you maintain your proposition when you
admit that there is a Suttanta in which the Exalted One
said: 'Bhikkhus! those bhikkhus who are but average men, yet
are proficient in virtue and are mindful and reflective, can go-
to sleep without impure discharge. Those Rishis ivho are
outsiders, yet are devoid of passion in matters of sense, have
also no imyure discharge. That an Arahant should have
impure discharge is anomalous and unnatural'?1
[22] P.A.—Is the proposition untrue ?
"Th.—Yes.
P.A.—But if you admit that others may convey to the
Arahant clothing, alms, bedding, or medicine, surely my
proposition [as involving conveyance of something by
another] is tenable ?
[23] Th.—-But is everything beyond those four requisite's*
conveyable? Could others convey to the Arahant the-
fruition of Stream-Winning, of Once-Returning, of Never-
Returning, or of Arahanship ? No ? Then your argument
cannot hold.
1
Vinaya, i. 295. Atthanam, anavakaso—this idiomatic
pair of words means literally [something] out of place, without
occasion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment