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 XVII
1. Of an Arahant having Accumulating Merit.
Controverted Point.—That there is accumulation of merit
in the case of an Arahant.
From the Commentary.—This is an opinion carelessly formed by
such as the Andhakas: that because an Arahant may be seen dis-
tributing gifts to the Order, saluting shrines, and so on, he is accumu-
lating merit. For him who has put away both merit and demerit, if
he were to work merit, he would be liable to work evil as well.
[1] Th.—If the Arahant have accumulation of merit, you
must allow he may also have accumulation of demerit. . . .
And [2] you must equally allow that he achieves meritorious
karma, and karma leading to the imperturbable,1 that he
does actions conducing to this or that destiny, or plane of
rebirth, actions conducing to authority, influence, riches,
adherents and retainers, celestial or human prosperity. . . .
[3] You must further admit that, in his karma, he is
heaping up or unloading, putting away or grasping, scat-
tering or binding, dispersing or collecting.2 If he does
none of these things, but having unloaded, put away,
scattered, dispersed, so abides, your proposition is untenable.
[4] A.—But may not an Arahant give gifts—clothing,
alms, food, lodging, medicaments for sickness, food, drink?
May he not salute shrines, hang garlands on them, and per-
fumes and unguents ? May he not make consummate
oblations before them ? You admit this. But these are all
merit-accumulating acts. . . .
1
See p. 190, n. 2.
2
See I. 2, § 63.
2. Of Arahants and Untimely Death.
Controverted Point.—That an Arahant cannot have an
untimely death.
From the Commentary.—From carelessly grasping the Sutta cited
below, some—to wit, the Kajagirikas and Siddhatthikas—hold that
since an Arahant is to experience the results of all his karma before he
can complete existence, therefore he cannot die out of due time.
[1] Th.—Then are there no murderers of Arahants ?
You admit there are. [2] Now when anyone takes the life
of an Arahant, does he take away the remainder of life
from a living man, or from one who is not living? If the
former, then you cannot maintain your proposition. If the
latter, there is no murder, and your admission is wrong.
[3] Again, you admit that poison, weapons, or fire may
get access to the body of - an Arahant. It is therefore clear
that an Arahant may suffer sudden death. [4] But i f you
deny, then there can be no murderer.
[5] R.S.—But was it not said by the Exalted One: 'I
declare, bhikkhus, that there cannot be destruction [of karmic
energy] ere the outcome of deeds that have been deliberately
tor ought and conserved has been experienced, whether that
destruction be under present conditions, or in the next or in
a subsequent series of conditions '
Hence there is no untimely dying for an Arahant.
1
Anguttara-Nik., v. 292 f., and above, p. 266. The Commentary
paraphrases this passage in detail. The following is an approximate
rendering. The commentator follows the negative form of statement
in the Pali of the Sutta, which is rendered above in positive form:
'I do not declare (na vadami) the annulment—that is, the complete
cutting of f of the recoil (parivatuma-paricchinnabhavar) )
—of deeds done by free will without their result having been ex-
perienced—i.e., obtained, partaken of. Nor do I declare that such
destruction may be realized under present conditions, but not here-
after. Nor do I declare that such destruction may be effected in the
very next rebirth, or the rebirth next to that ; nor that it may be
effected in subsequent rebirths; nor that it may be effected in one
rebirth where opportunity of maturing results arises, and not in another
where no such opportunity arises. Thus in all manner of conditions,
3. Of Everything as due to Karma.
Controverted Point.—That all this is from karma.
From the Commentary.— Because of the Sutta cited below, the
Rajagirikas and Siddhatthikas hold that all this cycle of karma,
corruptions and results is from karma.
[1] Th.—Do you then include karma itself as due to
karma?1 And do you imply that all this is simply the
result of bygone causes ?2 You are committed here to
what you must deny.
[2] Again, you imply, by your proposition, that all this
is [not so much from karma as] from the result of [still
earlier] karma. If you deny,3 you deny your first proposi-
tion. If you assent,4 you imply that one may commit
murder through [not karma, but] the result of karma.
You assent?5 Then murder, [though a result], is itself
given renewed existence and eventuation of karmic result, there is no
place on earth wherein a living being may be freed from the con-
sequences of his own evil deeds. All this the Buddha implied in the
Sutta quoted. Hence the opponents' premises for establishing his view
—that any act which has not obtained its turn of eventuation should
invariably be experienced by an Arahant as result—have not been well
established.'
For the opponents akala (untimely) meant one thing, for the
Theravadin another. To judge by the Theragatha Commentary (Pss.
of the Brethren, pp. 232, 266), the orthodox opinion was that no one,
in his last span of life, could die before attaining Arahantship.
1
This is rejected as fusing karma with its result.—Comy.
2
That the present is merely a series of effects and without initiative.
See on this erroneous opinion (stated in Angwttara-Niki. 173 ff.;
Vibhanga, 367) Ledi Sadaw, JPTS, 1913-14, p. 118.
3
If all is from karma, then that causal karma effected in a past life
must have been the result of karma effected in a still earlier life.—
Comy.
4
A shoot cannot produce a shoot, but in the continuity of life a seed
is the product of another seed, and by this analogy karma is the result
of previous karma. So at first rejecting, he then assents.—Comy.
(freejy rendered).
5
He assents, because the murderous intent is, by his theory, the
result of previous karma.—Comy. The PTS edition ought here to
have Amanta instead of the negation.
productive of [karmic] result ? You assent ? Then the
result of karma is productive of result ? You deny ? Then
it is barren of result, and murder must a fortiori be barren
of [karmic] result. .. .
[3] This argument applies equally to other immoral acts
—to theft, to wicked speech—lying, abuse, slander, and
idle talk—to burglary, raiding, looting, highway robbery,
adultery, destroying houses in village or town. It applies
equally to moral acts : to giving gifts—e.g., giving the four
necessaries [to the religious]. If any of these is done as
the result of karma, and themselves produce karmic result,
then [you are on the horns of this dilemma: that] either
result-of-karma can itself produce effects [which is hetero-
dox], or any good or bad deed has no karmic result [which
is heterodox]. . . .
[4] R.S.—But was it not said by the Exalted One :
''Tis karma makes the world go round,
Karma rolls on the lives of men.
All beings are to karma bound
As linch-pin is to chariot-wheel.'1
' By karma praise and fame are toon.
By karma too, birth, deatji ancl bonds.
Who that this karma's divers modes discerns,
Can say "there is no karma in the world " '?2
Hence surely all this is due to karma ?
1 Sutta-Nipata, verse 654.
2 We cannot trace these four lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment