16.

Sixteenth Chapter

1. Commentary on the Discussion of Refutation

743-744. Now there is the discussion called the restraint discussion. Therein, those who in the world have attained power and have become masters, if they were not able to restrain another's mind, what would be their attainment of power, what would be their mastery? But through the attainment of power and through mastery they certainly restrain another's mind - this is the view of those, just as of the Mahāsaṅghikas; with reference to them, "one person, of another's" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. Therein, "restrains" means prevents from the attainment of defilement. The remainder here proceeds according to the canonical text itself. In the exertion discussion too, the same method applies.

Commentary on the Discussion of Refutation.

3. Commentary on the Discussion of Giving Happiness

747-748. Now there is the discussion called the giving of happiness. Therein, for those whose view is "one person gives happiness to another," in dependence on the discourse "The Blessed One has indeed brought many pleasant states to us," just as the Hetuvādins hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. But when asked "gives suffering," not seeing such a discourse passage, he rejects. In the question beginning with "one's own happiness," that which is one's own or another's, that cannot be given. That which is his own, what therein is called giving? - thus he rejects. But in the question beginning with "neither one's own," that which is of such a form, that does not deserve to be called given - thus he acknowledges merely by view. "Then indeed sir" and so on was not said because of the absence of such happiness. The statement "one who has brought pleasant states" explains the Blessed One's being a condition for the arising of happiness in others, not the giving of happiness as in the case of food and so on; therefore it is not a proof.

Commentary on the Discussion of Giving Happiness.

4. Commentary on the Discussion of Forcible Attention

749-753. Now there is the discussion called the attention having attained. Therein, attention is twofold: by method and by object. Therein, even when the impermanence of a single activity is seen, attention by method occurs regarding the remaining ones as "all activities are impermanent." But one attending to past activities is not able to attend to future ones. For one attending to a certain one among the past and so on, attention by object occurs. Therein, one attending to the present is not able to attend at the present moment to that consciousness by which one attends to them. Therein, for those whose view, in dependence on the utterance beginning with "all activities are impermanent," is "one who attends, having attained, having grasped, having collected, attends to all activities together," just as the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.

Then, since for one attending to all together, that consciousness by which one attends to them should also be attended to. Therefore, in order to accuse by that being-of-such-consciousness, he said "by that consciousness." The other rejects with reference to the fact that it cannot be known by making it an object. But since consciousness of such characteristic is known, he acknowledges with reference to the fact that that consciousness too is indeed known. Or he rejects that that very thing is not its object. He acknowledges by the force of a view arisen in dependence on passages beginning with "All activities are impermanent, when one sees with wisdom." The same method applies to the remaining pair of questions too. But in those beginning with "by that contact," not seeing a discourse of such a kind, he just rejects. In the questions beginning with the past, the rejecting and acknowledging should be understood by the very method stated above. The remainder proceeds according to the canonical text itself. The utterance beginning with "all activities" is said with reference to seeing by method, not by object at one moment; therefore it is not a proof.

Commentary on the Discussion of Forcible Attention.

5. Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is a Root Triad

754-756. Now comes the discussion called matter being a root. Therein, "root" is the name both for the root-cause such as the wholesome roots and so on, and also for whatever condition. But without making this division, the view of those who, relying merely on the expression "the four primary elements are roots," hold without distinction that matter is a root, just as the Uttarāpathakas hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. "Non-greed is a root" - he asks whether your matter is a root reckoned as non-greed, the other rejects. The same method applies in the remaining ones too. "The primary elements are the derived cause of derived materiality" - here the state of being a cause is stated in the meaning of condition, not in the meaning of root, therefore it is not a proof.

Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is a Root Triad.

757-759. In the discussion on with root too, the meaning should be understood by this very method.

Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is With Root.

7. Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is Wholesome-Unwholesome

760-764. Now comes the discussion called matter being wholesome-unwholesome. Therein, for those whose view is that, in dependence on the statement "bodily action and verbal action are both wholesome and unwholesome," the matter of bodily intimation and verbal intimation reckoned as bodily and verbal action is both wholesome and unwholesome, just as the Mahiṃsāsakas and the Sammitīyas hold; with reference to them, "matter is wholesome" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. Then, in order to accuse him thus: "if for you matter is wholesome, it must be of such a kind," he said beginning with "with sense-object." In what follows, in the question on unwholesome too, the same method applies. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is Wholesome-Unwholesome.

8. Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is Resultant

765-767. Now the discussion called "Matter is Resultant" follows. Therein, for those whose view is that matter arisen due to action having been done, just as consciousness and mental factors arisen due to action having been done, is also resultant, just as the Andhakas and the Sammitīyas hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. Then, in order to accuse him thus: "if for you matter is resultant, it must be of such a kind," he said beginning with "experienced as pleasant." The remainder proceeds according to the canonical text itself.

Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is Resultant.

9. Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is Fine-Material-Sphere and Immaterial-Sphere

768-770. Now comes the discussion called matter being fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere. Therein, since matter that is due to the doing of sensual-sphere action is of the sensual-sphere, the view of those who hold that matter due to the doing of fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere action too must be fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere matter, just as the Andhakans hold; with reference to them, "there is matter that is fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. The remainder here is the same as the method already stated above.

Commentary on the Discussion of Matter is Fine-Material-Sphere and Immaterial-Sphere.

10. Commentary on the Discussion of Included in the Material and Immaterial Elements

771-775. Now there is the discussion named "Lust for fine-material existence is included in the fine-material element, lust for immaterial existence is included in the immaterial sphere element." Therein, because sensual lust is included in the sensual element, therefore the view of those who hold that lust for fine-material existence and lust for immaterial existence too must be included in the fine-material element and the immaterial sphere element, just as the Andhakans hold; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other. The remainder should be understood by the method already stated above. For only the term "underlies the fine-material element, underlies the immaterial sphere element" is the distinction therein. And that view is of the Andhakans and the Sammitīyas. This is of the Andhakans only.

Commentary on the discussion "Lust for fine-material existence is included in the fine-material element, lust for immaterial existence is included in the immaterial sphere element."

Commentary on the Discussion of Included in the Material and Immaterial Elements.

The sixteenth chapter.