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 XIX
1. Of getting rid of Corruption.
Controverted Point.—That we may extirpate corruptions
past, future, and present.1
From the Commentary.—Inasmuch as there is such a thing as
putting away corruptions, and for one in whom this is completed both
past and future, as well as present, corruptions are put away, there-
fore some—certain of the Uttarapathakas, for instance—hold that we
can now put away the corruptions of our past, etc.
[1] Th.—In other words, we may stop that which has
ceased, dismiss that which has departed, destroy that which
is destroyed, finish that which is finished, efface that which
has vanished. For has not the past ceased ? Is it not
non-existent? . . .
[2] And as to the future, you imply that we can produce
the unborn, bring forth the non-nascent, bring to pass the
unhappened, make patent that which is latent. . . . For
is not the future unborn ? Is it not non-existent ? . . .
[3] And as to the present: does the lustful put away
lust, the inimical put away hate, the confused put away
dulness, the corrupt put away corruption ? Or can we put
away lust by lust, and so on? You deny all this. But
did you not affirm that we can put away present corrup-
tions? .. .
Is lust and is 'Path' a factor in conscious experience?2
You assent, of course. But can there be a parallel con-
1
For the 'ten corruptions,' see above, pp. 65, n. 4, 66, n. 4. On [1] f .
cf. p. 85, § 2f.
2
Literally, 'conjoined with consciousness.' We cannot at the same
time give play to immoral thought and be developing the Ariyan mind.
scious procedure [of both] at the same time ? . . . If lust
be immoral, and 'Path' moral consciousness, can moral
and immoral, faulty and innocent, base and noble, sinister
and clear mental states co-exist side by side [at the same
moment] ? You deny. Think again. Yes, you now reply.
But was it not said by the Exalted One : ' There are four
things, bhikkhus, very far away one from the other ; what are
the four ? The sky and the earth, the hither and the yonder
shore of the ocean, whence the sun rises and where he sets, the
norm of the good and that of the wicked. Far is the sky,
etc. . .
Hence those mental opposites cannot co-exist side by side.
[4] U.—But if it be wrong to say 'we can put away past,
future, and present corruptions,' is there no such thing as
the extirpation of corruptions ? You admit there is. Then
my proposition stands.2
2. Of the Void.
Controverted Point.—That ' the Void ' is included in the
aggregate of mental co-efficients (sankharakkhandha) .
From the Commentary.—'The Void [or Emptiness] has two im-
plications : (a) Absence of soul, which is the salient feature of the five
aggregates [mind and body]; and (b) Nibbana itself. As to (a), some
marks of ' no-soul' may be included under mental coefficients (the
ourth aggregate) by a figure of speech.3 Nibbana is not included there-
under. But some, like the Andhakas, drawing no such distinction, hold
the view stated above.
[1] Th —Do you then imply that the 'Signless,' that
the 'Not hankered-after' is also so included ? If not, ' the
1
See VII. 5, § 3, for the full quotation.
2
The putting away of corruptions, past, future, or present, is not a
work comparable to the exertions of a person clearing away rubbish-
heaps. With the following of the Ariyan Path having Nibbana as its
object, the corruptions are 'put away' simply because they don't get
born. In other words, the past has ceased; the cure as to present and
future is preventive.—Comy.
3
Ekena pariyayena. Marks of other aggregates cannot be so
included, even by way of figurative speech.
Void' cannot be,1 [2] for you cannot predicate of the last
that which you deny of the former two.
[3] Again, if the fourth aggregate be made to include
'the Void,' it must be not impermanent, not arisen through
a cause, not liable to perish, nor to lose lust, nor to cease,
nor to change!
[4] Moreover, is the 'emptiness' of the material aggre-
gate included under the fourth aggregate ? Or the 'empti-
ness ' of the second, third, and fifth aggregates thereunder ?
Or is the ' emptiness ' of the fourth aggregate itself included
under any of the other four ? [5] If the one inclusion is
wrong, so are all the other inclusions.
[5] A.—But was it not said by the Exalted One:
'Empty is this,2 bhikkhus—the sankhara's—either of soul
or of what belongs to soul'?
3. Of the Fruits of Life in Religion.
Controverted Point.—That the fruit of recluseship is
unconditioned.
From the Commentary.—Our doctrine has judged that the term
'fruits of life in religion' means the mind in general which results
from the processes of thought in the Ariyan Path, and occurs in the
mental process attending the attainment of its Fruits. But there are
some, like the Pubbaseliyas, who, taking it otherwise, mean by it just
the putting away of corruptions and success therein.3
_______________________________________________________________
1
All three being names for Nibbana, they are adduced to expose
the flaw in a theory which does not discriminate.—Comy. Cf. Com-
pendium, p. 216.
2
See I. 1, §§ 241, 242. The nearest verbatim reference that we can
trace is Samyutta-Nik., iv. 296 ; but even there the word sankhara,
which here seems dragged in by the opponent, is omitted. 'The
Theravadin suffers it to stand, because it is not inconsistent with the
orthodox "sabbe sankhara anicca," where sankhara stands
for all five aggregates [exhausting all conditioned things].'—Comy.
3
Hence unconditioned, i.e., unprepared, uncaused, unproduced by
the our conditions—karma, mind, food, or physical, environment
(utu). Cf. Compendium, p. 161.
[1] Th.—Do you then identify that 'fruit' with
Nibbana:—the Shelter, the Cave, the Refuge, the Goal, the
Past-Decease, the Ambrosial ?1 Or are there two 'uncon-
ditioned's'? You deny both alternatives [but you must
assent to one or the other]. If to the latter, I ask are
they both . . . Nibbanas, and is there one higher than the
other, . . . or is there a boundary .. . an interstice between
them?2
[2] Again, do you imply that recluseship itself is uncon-
ditioned ? 'No, conditioned,' you say. Then is its fruit or
reward conditioned ? . . .
[3, 4] You admit, again, that the four stages in the
recluse's Ariyan Path—the Four Paths—are conditioned.
Yet you would deny that the Four Fruits are conditioned!
[5] In fact, you would have in these four and Nibbana
five ' unconditioned's.' Or if you identify the four with
Nibbana, you then get five sorts of Nibbana, five Shelters,
and so on. . . .
1 Cf. VI. 1, § 1.
2 Ibid. The text abbreviates even more than we do.
0 comments:
Post a Comment