Kathavatthu - Of [the Quality Called] Ariyan

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 Quality called] Ariyan.
Controverted Point.—•(a) That the power of a Tathagata,
e.g., in discerning as it really is the causal occasion of
anything, and its contradictory, is Ariyan.
2
From the Commentary.—That, of the foregoing ten powers of dis-
cernment or insight, not only the last (insight into extinction of
intoxicants), but also the preceding nine were Ariyan, is a view of
the Andhakas.
[1] Th.—If it be so, you should also affirm of that power
that it is the (Ariyan) Path, [or other Ariyan doctrine,
such as] Fruit, Nibbana, one of the Four Paths to Arahant-
ship, or of the Four Fruits thereof, one of the Applica-
tions in Mindfulness, Supreme Efforts, Steps to Potency,
Controlling Powers,
3
Forces, or Factors of Enlightenment.
But you do not agree to this.
[2] Or is [the concept of] Emptiness the object of that
power?
4
If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposi-
tion. If you assent, then you must affirm that one who
is attending to the exercise of this power attends also to
Emptiness. If you deny, you cannot affirm that Empti-
ness is the object of the power in your proposition. If you

2
See Rhys Davids, Early Buddhism, 49; Mrs. Rh. D., Buddhism, 69.
3
I.e., ethical or spiritual faculties. Cf . I. 2, § "15. ; Compendium, 179 f .
4 Sunnata . Cf . Bud. Psy. Eth., p. 91, § 344 f . ' There are two
Emptinesses: (1) In the aggregates of a soul (satta); (2) Nibbana,
or detachment from all conditioned things. The Opponent denies
because of the latter, assents because of the former.—Comy.


assent, then you are claiming a combination of two (mental)
contacts, two consciousnesses—which of course you deny.
[8] A similar argument holds good for the other two
concepts of the ' Signless ' and the ' Not-hankered-after.'
1
[4] [Or, to argue conversely], you admit that (1) the
Applications in Mindfulness are Ariyan, and have as their
object the concepts of' Emptiness,' the ' Signless,' and the
'Not-hankered-after.' But you deny that these are the
object of that power of a Tathagata. Hence that power
cannot be classified under things 'Ariyan.'
[5] This argument applies also to (2) the Supreme Efforts
and (8-6) the Steps to Potency, etc. (§ 1).
[6] A.—You say then that my proposition is wrong—
that it is not Ariyan, and has not as its object Emptiness,
the Signless, or the Not-hankered-after. Yet you do not
deny that the six foregoing doctrines are Ariyan, and also
have that Threefold object—why deny the same of that
power of which my proposition speaks ?
[7] Th.—Nay, why do you maintain that the power of a
Tathagata, in discerning as it really is the decrease and
rebirth of beings and its contradictory, is Ariyan, while you
are not prepared to class that power with things we call
Ariyan—the Path, and so on ? .
[8-12] The arguments in §§ 2-6 are then repeated for the
Andhaka's propositions ;-—that the other powers of a Tathagata
discerning the decease and rebirth of beings as they really are,
etc., are Ariyan.
[13] A.—You admit then that the tenth of the ' Powers'
ascribed to a Tathagata—insight into the extinction as it
really is of intoxicants—is Ariyan, but you deny it in the
case of the two powers named above. How can you affirm
it of the tenth?
[14] The Andhaka puts the case negatively.
[15, 16] As in [13, 14], with the addition of the ' Three
Signs,' as 'object,' added to the predicate 'is Ariyan.'
1
Animitta , Appanihita {Bud. Psy. Eth., p. 91, § 344 f.);
Comp., 211.