13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(126) 1.

Discussion on Lasting a Cosmic Cycle

654. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does a Buddha arise in the world? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does the Community split? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does one who remains for a cosmic cycle perform an action lasting for a cosmic cycle? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Does the cosmic cycle remain and does the person who remains for a cosmic cycle die? That should not be said. Etc.

655. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain for a past cosmic cycle, would one remain for a future cosmic cycle? That should not be said. Etc. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. Would one remain for two cosmic cycles... would one remain for three cosmic cycles... would one remain for four cosmic cycles? That should not be said. Etc.

656. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle? Yes. When the cosmic cycle is being destroyed, where does one who remains for a cosmic cycle go? He goes to another world system. Does he go dead, does he go through the sky? He goes dead. Is the action lasting for a cosmic cycle successively ripening? That should not be said. Etc. Does he go through the sky? Yes. Does one who remains for a cosmic cycle possess supernormal power? That should not be said. Etc. Does one who remains for a cosmic cycle possess supernormal power? Yes. Has the basis for spiritual power of desire been developed by one who remains for a cosmic cycle, has the basis for spiritual power of energy been developed, has the basis for spiritual power of developed mind been developed, has the basis for spiritual power of investigation been developed? That should not be said. Etc.

657. Should it not be said - "Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One -

Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who remains for a cosmic cycle would remain for a cosmic cycle.

The discussion on lasting a cosmic cycle is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(127) 2.

Discussion on the Attainment of the Wholesome

658. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle not obtain wholesome consciousness? Yes. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle give a gift? Yes. If one who remains for a cosmic cycle would give a gift, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "One who remains for a cosmic cycle would not obtain wholesome consciousness."

Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle not obtain wholesome consciousness? Yes. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle give a robe? Etc. Would give almsfood? Etc. Would give lodging? Etc. Would give the requisite of medicines for the sick? Would give solid food? Would give soft food? Would give drinking water? Would venerate a shrine? Would place a garland at a shrine? Would place scent? Would place cosmetics? Etc. Would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right? Yes. If one who remains for a cosmic cycle would circumambulate a shrine keeping it to the right, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "One who remains for a cosmic cycle would not obtain wholesome consciousness." Etc.

659. Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle obtain wholesome consciousness? Yes. Would he obtain wholesome consciousness of emergence from that? Yes. Fine-material-sphere, etc. Immaterial-sphere, etc. Would he obtain supramundane wholesome consciousness? That should not be said. Etc.

The discussion on the attainment of the wholesome is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(128) 3.

Discussion on Proximity and Inappropriateness

660. Could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Could he enter both the fixed course of the wrong path and the fixed course of the right path? That should not be said. Etc. Could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Is it not that when that action was applied, remorse was produced, regret was generated? Yes. If when that action was applied, remorse was produced, regret was generated, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "A person engaged in an immediate deed could enter the fixed course of the right path."

661. Is a person engaged in an immediate deed unable to enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. A mother has been deprived of life... a father has been deprived of life... a Worthy One has been deprived of life... blood has been drawn from a Tathāgata with a malicious mind... the monastic community has been split? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person engaged in an immediate deed, having withdrawn that action, having dispelled remorse, having removed regret, unable to enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. A mother has been deprived of life... a father has been deprived of life... etc. the monastic community has been split? That should not be said. Etc.

Is a person engaged in an immediate deed, having withdrawn that action, having dispelled remorse, having removed regret, unable to enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Is it not that that action has been withdrawn, remorse has been dispelled, regret has been removed? Yes. If that action has been withdrawn, remorse has been dispelled, regret has been removed, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "A person engaged in an immediate deed, having withdrawn that action, having dispelled remorse, having removed regret, is unable to enter the fixed course of the right path."

662. Could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path? Yes. Was he not engaged in that action? Yes. If he was engaged in that action, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "A person engaged in an immediate deed could enter the fixed course of the right path."

The discussion on proximity and inappropriateness is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(129) 4.

Discussion on the Fixed Course for One Fixed in Destination

663. Does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course? Yes. Does one with fixed course of the wrong path enter the fixed course of the right path, does one with fixed course of the right path enter the fixed course of the wrong path? That should not be said. Etc.

Does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course? Yes. Having formerly developed the path, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc. Having formerly developed the path of stream-entry, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course of stream-entry? That should not be said. Etc. Formerly the once-returner, etc. Non-returner, etc. Having developed the path of arahantship, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course of arahantship? That should not be said. Etc.

Formerly the establishment of mindfulness, etc. the right striving, the basis for spiritual power, the faculty, the power, having developed the factor of enlightenment, does one afterwards enter upon the fixed course? That should not be said. Etc.

664. Should it not be said - "Does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course"? Yes. Is the Bodhisatta capable of fully realising the teaching in that birth? That should not be said. If so, one fixed in destination enters upon the fixed course.

The discussion on the fixed course for one fixed in destination is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(130) 5.

Discussion on Being Hindered

665. Does one who is hindered give up the mental hindrance? Yes. Does one who is lustful give up lust, does one who is hateful give up hate, does one who is deluded give up delusion, does one who is defiled give up mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up lust by lust, give up hate by hate, give up delusion by delusion, give up mental defilements by mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is lust associated with consciousness, is the path associated with consciousness? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. Is lust unwholesome, is the path wholesome? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

666. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, etc. come into presence."

Does one who is hindered give up the mental hindrance? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "When the mind is thus concentrated, pure, bright, without blemish, free from impurities, supple, wieldy, stable, and having attained imperturbability, he inclines the mind towards the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One who is hindered gives up the mental hindrance." Etc.

667. Should it not be said - "One who is hindered gives up the mental hindrance"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For one knowing thus, seeing thus, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of sensuality, etc. the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of ignorance"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who is hindered gives up the mental hindrance.

The discussion on being hindered is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(131) 6.

Discussion on Being Met With

668. Does one who has met with give up the mental fetter? Yes. Does one who is lustful give up lust, does one who is hateful give up hate, does one who is deluded give up delusion, does one who is defiled give up mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc. Does one give up lust by lust, give up hate by hate, give up delusion by delusion, give up mental defilements by mental defilements? That should not be said. Etc.

Is lust associated with consciousness, is the path associated with consciousness? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc. Is lust unwholesome, is the path wholesome? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

669. Wholesome and unwholesome, etc. come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, etc. come into presence."

Does one who has met with give up the mental fetter? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "When the mind is thus concentrated, etc. he inclines the mind towards the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "One who has met with gives up the mental fetter."

670. Should it not be said - "One who has met with gives up the mental fetter"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "For one knowing thus, seeing thus, the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of sensuality, etc. the mind becomes liberated from the mental corruption of ignorance"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who has met with gives up the mental fetter.

The discussion on being met with is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(132) 7.

Discussion on One Who Has Attained Enjoying

671. One who has attained enjoys, is attachment to jhāna having jhāna as object? Yes. Is that meditative absorption the object of that meditative absorption? That should not be said. Etc. Is that meditative absorption the object of that meditative absorption? Yes. Does one touch that contact by that contact, does one feel that feeling by that feeling, does one perceive that perception by that perception, does one intend that volition by that volition, does one think that consciousness by that consciousness, does one apply thought to that applied thought by that applied thought, does one sustain thought on that sustained thought by that sustained thought, does one hold dear that joy by that joy, does one remember that mindfulness by that mindfulness, does one understand that wisdom by that wisdom? That should not be said. Etc.

Is attachment to jhāna associated with consciousness, is meditative absorption associated with consciousness? Yes. Of two contacts... etc. is there a combination of two consciousnesses? That should not be said. Etc.

Is attachment to jhāna unwholesome, is meditative absorption wholesome? Yes. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? That should not be said. Etc.

672. Do wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "There are, monks, these four things very far apart! What are the four? The sky, monks, and the earth - this is the first thing very far apart. Etc. Therefore the principle of the good is far from the unvirtuous." Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "Wholesome and unwholesome, blameable and unblameable, inferior and superior, mental states with dark and bright counterparts come into presence."

673. Should it not be said - "One who has attained enjoys, is attachment to jhāna having jhāna as object"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "Here, monks, a monk, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states, enters and dwells in the first meditative absorption, he enjoys it, desires it, and finds satisfaction on account of it; with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought, etc. the second meditative absorption, etc. the third meditative absorption... etc. enters and dwells in the fourth meditative absorption, he enjoys it, desires it, and finds satisfaction on account of it"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, one who has attained enjoys, attachment to jhāna has jhāna as object.

The discussion on one who has attained enjoying is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(133) 8.

Discussion on Lust for Discomfort

674. Is there lust for discomfort? Yes. Are beings delighters in suffering, are there any who aspire to suffering, long for suffering, seek suffering, search for suffering, investigate suffering, remain grasping suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that beings are delighters in happiness, are there any who aspire to happiness, long for happiness, seek happiness, search for happiness, investigate happiness, remain grasping happiness? Yes. If beings are delighters in happiness, there are any who aspire to happiness, long for happiness, seek happiness, search for happiness, investigate happiness, remain grasping happiness, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "There is lust for discomfort."

Is there lust for discomfort? Yes. Does the underlying tendency to lust underlie unpleasant feeling, does the underlying tendency to aversion underlie pleasant feeling? That should not be said. Etc. Is it not that the underlying tendency to lust underlies pleasant feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion underlies unpleasant feeling? Yes. If the underlying tendency to lust underlies pleasant feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion underlies unpleasant feeling, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "There is lust for discomfort."

675. Should it not be said - "There is lust for discomfort"? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "He, thus having attained compliance and opposition, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, asserts it, and remains grasping it"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, there is lust for discomfort.

The discussion on lust for discomfort is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(134) 9.

Discussion on Craving for Mental Objects Being Indeterminate

676. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Resultant indeterminate, functional indeterminate, matter, Nibbāna, the eye sense base, etc. the touch sense base? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for visible form indeterminate? That should not be said, etc. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

677. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Was not craving said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome? Yes. If craving was said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Was not greed said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, and is craving for mental objects greed? Yes. If greed was said by the Blessed One to be unwholesome, and craving for mental objects is greed, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

678. Is craving for mental objects greed that is indeterminate? Yes. Is craving for visible form greed that is indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects greed that is indeterminate? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed that is indeterminate? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form greed that is unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed that is unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed that is unwholesome? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed that is unwholesome? That should not be said. Etc.

679. Is craving for mental objects indeterminate? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "It is this craving which leads to rebirth, accompanied by delight and lust, finding delight here and there, as follows - sensual craving, craving for existence, craving for non-existence"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

680. Should it not be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate"? Yes. Is it not that craving for mental objects? Yes. If it is that craving for mental objects, then indeed sir, it should be said - "craving for mental objects is indeterminate."

The discussion on craving for mental objects being indeterminate is finished.

13.

Thirteenth Chapter

(135) 10.

Discussion on Craving for Mental Objects Not Being the Origin of Suffering

681. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for visible form not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

682. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Was not craving said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering? Yes. If craving was said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering." Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Was not greed said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering, and is craving for mental objects greed? Yes. If greed was said by the Blessed One to be the origin of suffering, and craving for mental objects is greed, then indeed sir, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering."

683. Is craving for mental objects greed, not the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for visible form greed, not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. Is craving for mental objects greed, not the origin of suffering? Yes. Craving for sound, etc. craving for odour, etc. craving for flavour, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed, not the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

Is craving for visible form greed the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc. craving for sound, etc. Is craving for tangible object greed the origin of suffering? Yes. Is craving for mental objects greed the origin of suffering? That should not be said. Etc.

684. Is craving for mental objects not the origin of suffering? Yes. Was it not said by the Blessed One - "It is this craving which leads to rebirth, accompanied by delight and lust, finding delight here and there, as follows - sensual craving, craving for existence, craving for non-existence"! Is there such a discourse? Yes. If so, it should not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering."

685. Should it not be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering"? Yes. Is it not that craving for mental objects? Yes. If it is that craving for mental objects, then indeed sir, it should be said - "craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering."

The discussion on craving for mental objects not being the origin of suffering is finished.

Thirteenth Chapter.

Its summary:

Would one who remains for a cosmic cycle remain for a cosmic cycle, would one who remains for a cosmic cycle not obtain wholesome consciousness, could a person engaged in an immediate deed enter the fixed course of the right path, does one fixed in destination enter upon the fixed course, does one who is hindered give up the mental hindrance, does one who has met with give up the mental fetter, attachment to jhāna, lust for discomfort, craving for mental objects is indeterminate, craving for mental objects is not the origin of suffering.