4.

Discussion on Abandoning

1.

Commentary on the Discussion on Not Adducing Discourses

279. Now there is the treatise called "the giving-up discussion." Therein, for those whose view is "a worldling who is an obtainer of meditative absorption, together with the full realisation of truth, becomes a non-returner, and sensual lust and anger were abandoned during his very time as a worldling," just as the Sammitīyas hold at present, to break that view of theirs, "Does a worldling give up?" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, and the acknowledgment is of the opponent who does not see the prepossession of those suppressed by meditative absorption. But since even for those suppressed by meditative absorption, the perpetual abandoning occurs only by the path of non-returning, therefore the pursuit beginning with "perpetually" and so on is again of the proponent of one's own doctrine, and the rejecting is of the other because of the absence of such abandoning. "Suppresses" - this is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine with reference to perpetual suppression only. Beyond that, there is the comparison of the worldling together with one who has attained the path of non-returning. That is of manifest meaning.

280. When asked "Does he remain in the fruition of non-returning?" beyond that, he acknowledges with reference to non-returning through meditative absorption. When asked "Does he remain in arahantship?" he rejects because of the non-abandoning of the higher fetters by the path of seeing.

When asked "Does he simultaneously develop the three paths?" he rejects because of the absence of such a development. When asked again, he acknowledges with reference to the existence of the function of the three paths. In the questions about the fruits of asceticism too, the same method applies. When asked "By which path?" he says "By the path of non-returning" with reference to non-returning through meditative absorption. When asked again about the abandoning of mental fetters, he rejects because those three mental defilements cannot be abandoned by the path of non-returning. When asked the second time, he acknowledges with reference to the first path itself being the path of non-returning through meditative absorption. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

Discussion on Abandoning.