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 Decay and Death and Karma.
Controverted Point.—That old age and death are a result
of action.
From the Commentary.—Inasmuch as some action does conduce to
that deterioration we call decay or old age, and to that curtailing of life
we call death, some, like the Andhakas, hold that old age and death are
the 'result (vipaka)' of that action. Now there is between morally
bad action and material decay the relation known as karma,2 but the
moral cause and the physical effect differ in kind. Hence the latter is
not subjective result (vipaka). It is unlike any mental state :—con-
tact, feeling, etc.—such as is produced by karma. Besides, it is partly
due to the physical order (utu).3
[1, 2] Th.—The first two sections are verbatim as in the
preceding discourse, save that instead of 'result of action'
(kamma-vipaka), ' result' (vipaka) only is used.
[3] Again, you admit, do you not, that the decay and
dying of bad states of mind is the result of previous bad
states ? But then you must also admit that the decay and
dying of good states of mind is the result of previous good
2
Kamma and vipaka (result in sentience) are two of the
twenty-four paccayas or correlations of things physical or mental.
Compendium, 191 f .
3
In the Comy. p. 101, last line (PTS), read: Utusamutthanadi-
bhedena tang patilabhavasena ayuno ca. . . .
states—which you deny. . . . But in denying the latter,
you imply denial of the former statement. . . .
[4] Or do you hold that the decay and dying of good
states of mind is the result of previous bad states ? You
do, you say. Then you imply that the decay and dying of
bad states is the result of previous good states—which you
deny. . . . But in denying this, you imply denial of the
former statement. . . .
[5] Or do you affirm that the decay and dying of both
good and bad states of mind are the result of bad states ?
You do, you' say. Then you must say no less: 'is the
result of good states'—which you deny. . . .
[6] A.—You say my proposition is false. But surely
acts conduce to the deterioration and to the curtailment of
life ? If so, my proposition is true.
9. Of the Ariyan Mind and its Results.
Controverted Point.—That Ariyan states of mind have
no [positive] result.
1
From the Commentary.—Some, like the Andhakas, hold that the
fruits of religious life, being merely the negative putting away of corrupt
qualities, are not properly states of mind. By religious life is meant
the career of a recluse, or progress in the Paths, as it is said: ' I will
show you the religious life and the fruits thereof,'2 the former being
the Fourfold Path,
3
and the fruits thereof those of Stream-Winner,
Once-Returner, Never-Returner, and Arahantship.
[1, 2] Th.—But you admit that the career of a recluse
or religious student is productive of great rewards—to wit,
the fruits of the Four Paths. How then can you deny
positive result ?
[3] Or, if you deny that these four kinds of fruit are
positive result—as you do—then you equally deny that
1 Vipaka—i.e., are they actions engendering for the subject no
positive psychical sequel, such as is always understood by this term ?
2
Samyutta-Nik. 25.
3
Each stage of the Path has the eight factors (Eightfold Path) in
different degrees.
there is positive result in the fruit of giving or of moral
conduct, or of religious exercises, which you maintain. . . .
[4] Now in maintaining these propositions, you must no
less maintain that there is positive result in the fruits of
the Paths. .. .
[5] Again, you will of course admit that good done
in relation to life on earth or in the heavens, material or
immaterial, entails result. Does this not commit you to
admitting that good done in relation to path-graduating1
also entails result [though you deny this by your proposi-
tion] ? Conversely, i f you maintain that good done in
relation to path-graduating entails no result, must you not
also deny result to good done in relation to life on earth or
in heaven ?
[6] A.—[Well, but is not this a parallel case?] You
will of course admit that good done in relation to life on
earth or in the heavens, material or immaterial, entailing
result, makes for accumulation of rebirth.2 Does this not
commit you to admitting that good done in relation to
path-graduating, entailing [as you say] result, makes also
for accumulation of rebirth [though you of course deny
this]?
10. Of Results as again causing Results.
Controverted Point.—That 'result' is itself a state en-
tailing resultant states.
3
From the Commentary.—Because one result [of karma] stands in
relation to another result by way of reciprocity,
4
etc., some, like the
Andhakas, hold that the result is itself necessarily the cause of other
results.
1
Literally, non-worldly, or supramundane. The Commentary
-classes all good done for rebirth as lokiya , mundane. Path-
graduating militated against rebirth.
2
For Buddhaghosa's definition of this term, see Bud. Psy. Eth.,
p. 82, n. 2.
3
Vipakadhamma-dhammo. See Bud. Psy. Eth., p. 253, n. 1.
4
Annamanna-paccayo, or mutuality; one of the twenty-four
relations. The statement here is from the Patthana.
t.s . v .
[1] Th.—If your proposition is true it is tantamount,
to saying that the result of that [result] entails [other]
results—which you deny. .. . Or, if you assent, then you
are asserting that in a given series there is no making an
end of ill, no cutting of f the round of birth and death,,
no Nibbana without residual stuff of life—which is contrary
to doctrine.1
[2] Again, are you asserting that 'result' and 'state
entailing resultant states ' are identical, equivalent terms—
of one import, the same, of the same content and origin ?
[3] That they are concomitant, co-existent, conjoined,,
connected, one in genesis, in cessation, in basis, and in
mental object? All this you deny. . . .2
[4] Again, do you mean that a given bad mental state is-
its own result, a given good state its own result ? That
the consciousness with which we take life is the very con-
sciousness with which we burn in purgatory ? That the
consciousness with which we give a gift of merit is the very
consciousness with which we rejoice in heaven ? . . .
[5] A.—You deny my proposition ; but are not ' results,
[of karma]' the four immaterial aggregates in reciprocal
relation ? If so, surely it is right to say that a result is.
a mental state resulting from other mental states ?
1
A. 'denies this for fear of contravening doctrine.'—Comy. Cf. .
above, I. 1 (p. 43 f.).
2
The opponent regards any one of the four mental groups as
' result entailing the other three as its results' in their mutual relation,
at any given moment.—Comy. But this cannot be, since all four are
mutually co-inhering at that moment as an indivisible whole.
0 comments:
Post a Comment