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
BOOK V
1. Of Emancipation.
Controverted Point.—That the knowledge of emancipation
has itself the quality of emancipation.
From the Commentary.—Four sorts of knowledge (or insight, nana )
are grouped under knowledge of emancipation, to wit, insight or intui-
tion, path-knowledge, fruit-knowledge, reflective knowledge. In other
words, emancipation considered as (1) freedom from perceiving things
as permanent or persisting, or through perceiving the opposite ; (2) the
severance and renunciation effected by the Paths; (3) the peace of
fruition1
; (4) contemplation of emancipation as such. Now only the
peace of fruition is abstract, unqualified emancipation. The rest
cannot be called emancipated things. But the Andhakas say that all
four are such.
[1] Th.—Does not your proposition imply that any
knowledge of emancipation whatever has the quality of
emancipation? For instance, has reflective knowledge
2
that quality? Is such knowledge of emancipation as is
possessed by one who has attained to the stage of Ariyan
adoption3 of that quality? You deny both. [Then your
proposition is too general.]
[2] Again, it includes that knowledge of emancipation
possessed by one who is practising in order to realize the
Fruit of the First, Second, Third, Fourth Paths.4 But
do you mean to convey that the knowledge of one in the
1
Phalang patipassaddhi-vimutti .
2 Or retrospective. Cf . Compendium, 58, 69 ; 132, n. 6; 207, n. 7.
3 Gotrabhu puggalo ; cf. Anguttara-Nik., iv. 373; v. 23;
Compendium, 55, 215, n. 5 ; the preparatory stage to the First Path.
4
On this wider extension of the term cf. III. 3 and 4.
First Path is equal to the knowledge of one who has won,
acquired, arrived at, realized the Fruit of that Path, and so
for the Second, Third, and Fourth ? Of course you deny.
[3] Conversely, do you mean to convey that, if the
knowledge of emancipation belonging to one who possesses
the Fruition of a Path has the quality of emancipation, the
knowledge of emancipation of one who is only practising
in order to realize that Fruition has the same quality ? Of
course you deny.
[4] Or in other words, let us assume, as you say, that
when a person has realized the fruition of any of the Four
Paths his knowledge of emancipation has itself the quality
or nature of emancipation. Now you admit that the
knowledge in question is the knowledge of one who has
won the Fruit, do you not ?
But do you maintain as much, if the person has not yet
realized, but is only practising to realize a given fruition ?
Of course you deny. . . .
2. Of the Knowledge of an Adept.1
Controverted Point.—That a learner has the insight o f
an adept.
From the Commentary.—This is an opinion of the Uttarapathakas,
namely, that learners, as Ananda and others were, showed by their
confessions about the Exalted One, etc., that they knew who were
adepts, [and therefore understood that knowledge, the possession of
which made them adepts].
[1] Th.—Then you imply that the learner knows, sees
2
the ideas of the adept, lives in the attainment of having
seen, known, realized them, lives in personal contact there-
with. If not—and you do deny this—then you cannot
maintain your proposition.
[2] We grant of course that the adept knows, sees the
ideas of the adept, lives in the attainment . . . and so on.
1
A-sekha, literally, non-learner, proficient, expert; in this case,
an Arahant. Sekha is one who is being 'trained.'
2
This idiom applies to those who arrive at their knowledge joy
themselves.—Comy.
But, as you have admitted, you cannot impute this know-
ledge to the learner.
1
Your position then is, that you credit the learner with
the insight of an adept, yet you deny that the learner
knows, sees the ideas of the adept, etc. But, the adept
having also of course the insight of the adept, if he be as
to insight on a level only with the learner, you must add
of the adept also that he knows not, sees not the ideas of
the adept, does not live in the attainment of having seen,
known, realized them, does not live in personal contact
therewith. Which is absurd, as you by your denial admit.
[3] You are ready to deny that a person in a lower Stage
of the Path has the insight as yet of the next higher Stage,
or that one who is adopted2
has yet the insight of even the
First Stage. How then can you ascribe the insight of those
who have finally attained to those who as yet have not ?
[4] U.—If my proposition is wrong, then how is it that
a learner, as Ananda was, knew the sublimity of the Exalted
One, or of the Elder Sariputta, or of the Elder Moggallana
the Great?
1
The PTS edition should read a negative reply here and at the
end of this section.
2
Gotrabhu , V. 1, § 1.
0 comments:
Post a Comment