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
5. Of the Rupa-element.
Controverted Point.—That the ultimate 'datum or ele-
ment of rupa' is things [cognized as] material.
From the Commentary.—The Theravadin criticizes this view—
held, for instance, by the Andhakas—on the ground that the 'Rupa-
element' includes all the spheres of life known as Rupa-bhava,
and is therefore more extensive than just material qualities of things.1
[1] Th.—Is then rupa a sphere of life, a destiny, a realm
of beings, renewed life, a matrix, a station for rebirth-con-
sciousness, an acquiring of individuality ? Is there karma
leading to it, beings to be reborn in it ? Do they get born,
grow old, die, decease, get rebirth there? Are the five
aggregates 'in' rupa ? Is it a five-mode existence ? [2]
Now all these you can predicate of the Rupa-datum, but
not of rupa, or material quality. Hence the latter has not
all that is implicated in the former.
Again, if the Rupa-datum consists only of material quali-
ties—and, as you will admit, there is material quality in the
Kama-datum—is this latter datum the same as Rupa-datum?
You say 'no.' But think. You must admit it is.2 Then
we get a man in two life-spheres at the same time. . . .
6. Of the Arupa-Element.
Controverted Point. — That the ultimate 'datum, or
element' of arupa is things [cognized as] immaterial.
From the Commentary. — Here the same method is followed.
Instruction is given by taking a certain immaterial notion—'feeling'
—and asking if that is a sphere of life, etc.; thus it is showed that in
no case are the two identical.
[1] Th.—Is then feeling a sphere of life, a destiny, a realm
of beings, renewed life, a matrix, a station for rebirth-
consciousness, an acquiring of individuality? Is there
1
Here there is the corresponding difficulty of the ambiguity of
rupa. See Compendium, 271 f.; Bud. Psy. Eth., 43 f.
2
He denies, so as not to contradict the accepted triad of life-spheres.
When pushed, he assents, because of his thesis.—Comy.
karma leading to it? Are beings to be reborn in it? Do
they get old, die, decease from, get reborn in it ? Are the
five aggregates ' in' feeling ? Is it a five-mode existence ?
[2] Now all these you can predicate of the Arupa-datum or
element, but not of feeling only.
Again, if the Arupa-element mean only immaterial things
—and you will admit there is feeling and other mental
aggregates in the Kama-element—are these two elements
or data identical ? Either you must deny (which were
unorthodox) or assent. In the latter case we get a person
in two spheres of life at the same time. The same argu-
ment holds good for Arupa and Rupa data. And if all
three be mutually identical, we get a person in three
spheres of life at the same time. . . .
7. Of the Senses in the Rupa-Sphere.
Controverted Point- That in the Rupa-sphere1 the in-
dividual has all the six senses.
From the Commentary.—Some (as, for instance, the Andhakas and
Sammitiyas), judging by the Sutta-passage—'having form, made of
mind,with all its main and lesser parts complete, not deficient in any
organ'2
—imagine that the Brahma-group and the rest had sensations
of smell, taste, and touch.
[1] Th.—If that be so, and one in that sphere have, say,
the sense of smell, you must admit odorous objects for him
to smell; and so too for the senses of taste and touch.
[2] But you deny the existence, in that sphere, of such
objects. [3-6] Yet it seems only rational that, admitting,
as you do, the existence in that sphere of both organ and
object in the case of sight, hearing, and [sense-co-ordination
or] mind, you should admit no less as to the other fields of
1
This includes sixteen grades of devas, the Brahma-heavens being
the lowest (Compendium, p. 138).
2
Dialogues, i. 47. In the Rupa heavens, where 'a subtle residuum
of matter is still met with' (Compendium, p. 12), only sight, hearing,
and intellectual co-ordination of these survives.
sense, once yon affirm the existence, in that sphere, of any of
the other sense-organs. [7-8] ' No,' you say. You are pre-
pared to admit organs of sight, hearing, and co-ordination,
and corresponding objects seen, heard, and cognized by
those organs; yet while you admit the other sense-organs,
you deny the existence of their objects. [9-10] In fact,
even if you were to concede the existence, in that sphere,
of objects odorous, sapid, and tangible, you would, you say,
deny they were apprehended by the corresponding organs,
though you admit the corresponding apprehension in the
case of sight, etc.
[11-13] But there are among you some1 who would admit
this apprehension of odours, tastes, and touches by the re-
spective organs, the existence of which you affirm. I would
ask them whether there exists in that sphere the odour of
roots, pith, bark, leaves, flowers, fruit, raw flesh, poisonous,
pleasant, or evil odours; whether there exists there also the
taste of roots, pith, bark, leaves, flowers, fruit, or sour,
sweet, bitter, pungent, saline, alkaline, acrid, astringent,
nice, or nauseous tastes; whether there exist there also
hard and soft, smooth and rough, pleasant and painful
contacts, heavy and light tangibles?
2
You deny that any
of these does exist in that sphere. . . .
[14] A. S.—But is there not in that sphere the where-
withal3 for smelling, tasting, touching ?
Th.—Yes.
A. S.—Surely then it is right to say that in the Rupa-
element the individual has all six senses ?
1
Certain teachers who will have it that the fields of sense are there
complete, each organ having its function.—Comy.
2
These are standard formulas of enumeration. See Bud. Psy.
Eth., pp. 187-89, 198.
3
Ghana-nimittang, etc. But this is only a matter of external
appearance, not of organ and mental object, and is therefore a futile
reference.—Comy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment