Kathavatthu - Of the Knowledge of the Arahant

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

2. Of the Knowledge of the Arahant.
Controverted Point.—That the Arahant may lack know-
ledge.
2

2
An-nana. This is less often used as a technical term in religion
than avijja , ignorance, and m oh a, but see Samy.-Nik, ii. 4;
v. 127, 429 ; Dhamma-sangani, § 1061, etc. This and the two following
propositions are based on the vague, loose extension of three several
terms.


From the Commentary.—The Pubbaseliyas hold that, because he was
liable to be ignorant and to get perplexed about facts concerning every-
day life, and to be surpassed in such knowledge by others, an Arahant
might be considered as lacking knowledge or insight, as given to doubt,
and as inferior to some. These views are refuted in this and the next
two discourses.
[1] Th.—You maintain that he does. Then you must
also admit that the Arahant has ignorance—ignorance as
flood, bond, latent bias, attack, fetter, hindrance.
1
If you
deny this, you cannot say he lacks knowledge.
[2] You would certainly admit lack of knowledge, ignorance
as ' flood,' etc., in the case of the average man. [3] How
can you assert the former and deny the latter in the case of
the Arahant ?
[4] You would deny that an Arahant from lack of know-
ledge would kill living things, take what is not given, speak
lies, utter slander, speak harshly, indulge in idle talk, com-
mit burglary, carry of f plunder, be a highwayman, commit
adultery,
2
and destroy village or town; yet you would admit
an average man might from lack of knowledge do such
things. [5] In fact you assert that an Arahant from lack
of knowledge would pursue the opposite course from what
an average man would do from lack of knowledge.
[6] You deny that an Arahant lacks knowledge in respect
of the Teacher, the Doctrine, the Order, of the ethical train-
ing, of the beginning of time, the end of time, both beginning
and end, and of things as happening by way of assignable
causes. You deny that herein he lacks knowledge. Yet
you maintain your proposition. .. .
[7] You admit that an average man who lacks knowledge
lacks it in those respects, bat that an Arahant who lacks
knowledge does not lack it in those respects. Must you
not also admit that an average man, lacking in knowledge,
does not lack it in those respects ?
[8-10] Can you maintain that the Arahant—one who
1
Six metaphors constantly applied to spiritual ignorance and
other failings in the Suttas. Cf. I., 5, § 8.
2
Cf. Dialogues, i. 69.


has so put away passion,
1
hate, ignorance, conceit, error,
doubt, sloth, distraction, impudence, and indiscretion, that
they are cut of f at the root and made as the stump of a
palm tree, incapable of rising again in future renewal, who
has cultivated the means for putting away passions, and
all the other factors of enlightenment to that end, who has
consummated as having done with lust, hate, and nescience,
and to whom all the terms for the Arahant may be applied
—that such an one lacks knowledge?
[11-16] Or how can you maintain your proposition with
regard to one class of Arahant only—to those who are
proficient in their own field—and not to another class—to
those who are proficient in other things ?
[17] Did not the Exalted One say in the Suttanta :
4
In
him who knows, O bhikkhus, who sees do I declare the
intoxicants to be extinct, not in him who knows not neither
sees. And what, bhikkhus, in him who knows who sees,
is the extinction of intoxicants? "Such is body, such its
cause, so is its cessation; such are the four mental factors,
such their cause, so is their cessation "—even this, O bhikkhus,
is the extinguishing of intoxicants '?2
How then can the Arahant [who knows who sees] lack
knowledge ?
[18] Again, did not the Exalted One say in the Suttanta:
' In him who knows, O bhikkhus, who sees do I declare the
intoxicants to be extinct, not in him who knows not, neither
sees And what, bhikkhus, in him who knows who sees is the
extinguishing of intoxicants ? " This is Ill !" herein, bhikkhus,
for him who knoios who sees is that extinguishing. " This is
the cause of Ill . . . this is the cessation of Ill . . . this is
the course leading to the cessation of Ill"—herein, bhikkhus,
for him who knows who sees is the extinguishing of intoxi-
cants"?3
How then can the Arahant [who knows who sees] lack
knowledge?
1
§§ 8-16 are given more fully in the preceding discourse, §§ 10-20.
2
Samyutta-Nikaya, ii. 29.
3
Ibid., v. 434.


[19] Again, did not the Exalted One say in the Suttanta:
' The man, O bhikkhus, ivho does not understand and compre-
hend all, ivho has not emptied himself of all, and given up all,
is not capable of extinguishing Ill. And he, O bhikkhus, who
understands, comprehends, empties himself of, and gives up all,,
he is capable of extinguishing Ill'?1
How then can the Arahant [who knows who sees] lack
knowledge ?
[20] Again, did not the Exalted One say in the Suttanta :
' For him e'en as insight doth come to pass,
Tin 'ee things as bygones are renounced for aye :
Belief that in him dwells a soul,
And faith in rule and rite—if aught remain.
Both from the fourfold doom is he released,
And neer the six fell deeds are his to do
How then can the Arahant be said to lack knowledge?
[21] Again, did not the Exalted One say in the Suttanta:
< Whenever, 0 bhikkhus, for the Ariyan disciple there doth
arise the stainless, flawless eye of the Norm—that whatsoever
is liable to happen is also liable to cease—together with the
arising of that vision are these three fetters : belief in a soul,
doubt, and the contagion of mere rule and ritual put away by
him '?3
How then can the Arahant be said to lack knowledge ?
[22] P.—Is it wrong to say 'the Arahant lacks know-
ledge '? May he not be ignorant of the name and lineage
of a woman or a man, of a right or wrong road, or of how
grasses, twigs, and forest plants are called ? If this is so,
surely, good sir, it is right to say that he lacks knowledge.
[23] Th—If you say that, in not knowing such things,
the Arahant lacks 'knowledge,' would you also say he lacks
knowledge as to the fruition of Stream-Winning, Once-
Returning, Never-Returning, Arahantship ? Of course not -
hence it should not be said that he lacks knowledge.
1
Samyutta-Nikaya, iv. 17. The Br. translator renders the second
line—avirajayang appajahang—by 'is not free from "dust," has
not given up the corruptions.'
2
See above (I. 4), p. 80.
3
See ibid.