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 XXII 
1. Of  the Completion  of  Life. 
Controverted  Point.—That  life  may be completed without 
a certain Fetter-quantity having been cast off . 
From the Commentary.  — Inasmuch as the Arahant completes 
existence without casting of f  every Fetter with respect to the range 
of  omniscience, some, like the Andhakas, hold the aforesaid  view, 
similar to what has been noticed above (theory of  the Mahasanghikas, 
XXI. 3). 
The  dialogue  resembles XXI.  3, verbatim. 
2. Of  Moral  Consciousness. 
Controverted  Point.—That  the Arahant is ethically con-
scious when completing existence at final  death. 
From the Commentary.—Some,  like the Andhakas, hold this view 
on the ground that the Arahant is ever lucidly conscious, even at the 
hour of  utterly passing away. The criticism points out that moral 
(ethical or good) consciousness inevitably involves meritorious karma 
[taking effect  hereafter].  The doctrine quoted by the opponent is 
inconclusive. It merely points to the Arahant's lucidity and aware-
ness while dying, to his ethically neutral and therefore  inoperative 
presence of  mind and reflection  at the last moments of  his cognitive 
process [javana] . But it was not intended to show the arising of 
morally good thoughts. 
[1] Th  —You are implying that an Arahant is achieving 
karma of  merit, or karma of  imperturbable character;1 that 
1
 Or 'for  remaining static,' anenjabhisankharang. See the 
same line of  argument in XVII. 1. The alternatives refer  to the 
sensuous and to the immaterial planes of  existence. 
he is working karma affecting  destiny, and rebirth, con-
ducive to worldly authority and influence,  to wealth and 
reputation,1 to beauty celestial or human. . . . 
[2] You are implying that the Arahant, when he is pass-
ing away, is accumulating or pulling down, is eliminating 
or grasping, is scattering or binding, is dispersing or collect-
ing.2 Is it not true of  him that he stands, as Arahant, 
neither heaping up nor pulling down, as one who has pulled 
down? That he stands, as Arahant, neither putting of f 
nor grasping at, as one who has put off?  As neither 
scattering nor binding, as one who has scattered ? As 
neither dispersing nor collecting, as one who has dispersed ? 
[3] A.—But does not an Arahant pass utterly away with 
lucid presence of  mind, mindful  and aware ? You agree. 
Then is this not ' good ' consciousness ?3 
3. Of  Imperturbable  (Fourth  Jhana)  Consciousness. 
Controverted  Point.—That  the Arahant completes ex-
istence in imperturbable absorption (anenje). 
From the Commentary.—Certain  of  the Uttarapathakas hold that 
the Arahant, no less than a Buddha, when passing utterly away, is in a 
sustained Fourth Jhana4 [of  the Immaterial plane]. 
[1] Th.—But  does he not complete existence with 
ordinary (or normal) consciousness ?5 You agree. How
then do you reconcile this with your proposition ? 
1
 Literally, great following  or retinue. 
2 Cf.  I. 2, § 63. 
3
 On the technical meaning of  'kusala, a-kusala' (good, bad), 
sde above, p. 339, 'From the Commentary.' 'Good' meant 'pro-
ducing happy result.' Now the Arahant had done with all that. 
4
 Wherein all thinking and feeling  have been superseded by clear-
ness of  mind and indifference.  See p. 190, n. 2; Dialogues,  i. 86 f -
5
 Pakati-ciite—i.e. , sub-consciousness (unimpressed conscious-
ness, bhavangacitta) . All sentient beings are normally in this 
mental state. When that ends, they expire with the (so-called act 
of)  ' decease-consciousness [cuti-citta, which takes effect,  in itself 
ceasing, as reborn consciousness in a new embryo]. The Arahant's 
[2] You are implying that he passes away with an 
ethically inoperative consciousness.1 Is it not rather with 
a consciousness that is pure ' result[3 ] Whereas accord-
ing to you he passes away with a consciousness that is 
unmoral and purely inoperative, I suggest that it is with a 
consciousness that is unmoral and purely resultant. 
[4] And did not the Exalted One emerge from  Fourth 
Jhana before  he passed utterly away immediately after?2 
4. Of  Penetrating  the Truth. 
Controverted  Point.—That  an embryo is capable of  pene-
trating the truth. 
From the Commentary.—Some—that  is, certain of  the UttarsU 
pathakas—hold that one who in his previous birth was a Stream-
winner, and remains so, must have [as a newly resultant consciousness] 
grasped the Truth while an embryo.3 
[1] Th.—You  are implying that an embryo can be 
instructed in, hear, and become familiar  with the Doctrine, 
can be catechized, can take on himself  the precepts, be 
normal mind when on the Arupa plane would be imperturbable. But 
the question is asked with reference  to the life-plane  of  all five 
aggregates' (not of  four  immaterial ones only).—Comy. 
1
 Kiriyamaye citte . Buddhism regards consciousness, under 
the specific  aspect of  causality, as either (1) karmic—i.e., able to 
function  causally as karma; (2) resultant (vipaka), or due to karma; 
(3) non-causal (kiriya), called here ' inoperative.' Cf.  Compendium, 
p. 19 f.  I.e., certain resultant kinds of consciousness, effects of karma 
in a previous birth, can never be causal again so as to effect  another 
result in any moral  order in the sense in which effects  may become 
causes in the physical order. Again, there are certain ethically neutral 
states of  consciousness consisting in mere action of  mind without 
entailing moral consequences. The Buddhist idea is that the normal 
flux of consciousness from birth to death, in each span of life, is purely 
resultant, save where it is interrupted by causal, or by 'inoperative' 
thought. 
2
 Dialogues,  ii. 175. 
3
 The Uttarapathakas were perhaps 'feeling  out' for  a theory of 
heredity.
guarded as to the gates of  sense, abstemious in diet, devoted 
to vigils early and late. Is not the opposite true ? 
[2] Are there not two conditions for  the genesis of  right 
views—' another's voice and intelligent attention?'1 
[3] And can there be penetration of  the Truth by one 
who is asleep, or languid, or blurred in intelligence, or 
unreflective  ? 
 
1
 Anguttara-Nik.,  i. 87.
0 comments:
Post a Comment