22.
Twenty-second Chapter
1. Commentary on the Treatise on Final Nibbāna
892.
Now there is the discussion called final nibbāna.
Therein, because a Worthy One attains final nibbāna with mental fetters not abandoned in the domain of omniscience, therefore the view of those who hold that "there is final nibbāna without abandoning any mental fetter," 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 here is the same as the method already stated above.
Commentary on the Treatise on Final Nibbāna.
2. Commentary on the Treatise on Wholesome Consciousness
894-895.
Now there is the discussion called the wholesome consciousness discussion.
Therein, because a Worthy One who has attained full mindfulness, even when attaining final nibbāna, attains final nibbāna mindful and fully aware, therefore the view of those who hold that he attains final nibbāna with wholesome consciousness, 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.
Then, since wholesome consciousness is so called by way of generating meritorious volitional activity and so on, therefore in order to accuse by that meaning, he said beginning with "a Worthy One, meritorious volitional activity."
The remainder here proceeds according to the canonical text itself.
"Mindful and fully aware" - this is said by way of functional mindfulness and full awareness at the moment of impulsion, for the purpose of illustrating death without confusion, not for the purpose of illustrating wholesome consciousness.
Therefore it is not a proof.
Commentary on the Treatise on Wholesome Consciousness.
3. Commentary on the Treatise on Imperturbability
896.
Now there is the discussion called the talk on imperturbability.
Therein, having observed that the Blessed One attained final nibbāna while established in the fourth meditative absorption, for those whose view is "a Worthy One attains final nibbāna while established in imperturbability," just as of certain Uttarāpathakas, with reference to them the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
"Normal consciousness" means the life-continuum consciousness.
For all percipient beings, having stood in the life-continuum consciousness, die with the death consciousness at the end of the life-continuum.
Thus, in order to accuse him with this meaning, he said thus.
Therein, although in four-aggregate constituent existence the normal consciousness of a Worthy One is also imperturbable, but this question is raised by way of five-aggregate constituent existence.
Therefore he said "then indeed sir, it should not be said."
The remainder here is clear in meaning.
Commentary on the Treatise on Imperturbability.
4. Commentary on the Treatise on Full Realisation of the Teaching
897.
Now there is the talk called full realization of the teaching.
Therein, having seen one who was a stream-enterer in a past existence, having dwelt in the mother's womb and come forth, for those whose view is "there is full realization of the teaching during conception in a womb," just as of certain Uttarāpathakas, 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 there is full realization of the teaching there, there must be the causes of full realization of the teaching such as teaching of the Teaching and so on," he said beginning with "is there teaching of the Teaching during conception in a womb."
"For one who is asleep" and so on is said with reference to the life-continuum section.
For during conception in a womb, mostly only the life-continuum proceeds.
For that very reason, the being is asleep due to the absence of functional activity, heedless due to the absence of pursuit of meditation, and is called unmindful and not fully aware due to the absence of mindfulness and full awareness that discern the meditation subject; whence is full realization of the teaching for one of such nature?
Commentary on the Treatise on Full Realisation of the Teaching.
5-7. Commentary on the Treatise on Tissa Also
898-900.
Now, there are three discussions named after Tissa.
Therein, having seen the attainment of arahantship of recently born stream-enterers and the seven-year embryo of the female lay follower Suppavāsā, "there is attainment of arahantship during conception in a womb," and having seen travelling through space and so on in a dream, "there is full realization of the teaching," and "there is attainment of arahantship therein" - for those here too whose views are such, just as of those very same ones;
with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
The remainder here is similar to the earlier discussion.
Commentary on the Treatise on Tissa Also.
8. Commentary on the Discussion of the Indeterminate
901-902.
Now there is the discussion called the indeterminate.
Therein, from the statement "there is this volition, monks, but that is negligible," "all consciousness of one who is dreaming is indeterminate" is the view of those, just as of certain Northerners only; with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
The remainder here proceeds according to the canonical text itself.
"The consciousness of one who is dreaming is negligible" - this is said with reference to an offence.
For although unwholesome consciousness occurs for one who is dreaming by way of killing living beings and so on, since there is no disturbance of the material object, it is not possible to designate an offence therein.
By this reason that is negligible, not because of being indeterminate.
Commentary on the Discussion of the Indeterminate.
9. Commentary on the Treatise on the Repetition Condition
903-905.
Now there is the discussion on the repetition condition.
Therein, because all phenomena are momentary, no one, having stayed even for a moment, practises the repetition condition.
Therefore there is no repetition conditionality whatsoever.
But "nothing has arisen through repetition conditionality" is the view of those, just as of those very same ones;
with reference to them, the question is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
Then, to make it known by means of the discourse itself, the passage beginning with "Was it not said by the Blessed One - 'killing living beings'" was brought.
All that is of manifest meaning.
Commentary on the Treatise on the Repetition Condition.
10. Commentary on the Treatise on the Momentary
906-907.
Now there is the discussion called the momentary.
Therein, because all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, therefore they last one mind-moment only.
For since impermanence is the same, one is destroyed quickly, one after a long time - what is the fixed course here? This is the view of those, just as the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas hold;
with reference to them, "lasting one mind-moment" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine, the acknowledgment is of the other.
In those beginning with "does the great earth remain in consciousness," not seeing their remaining thus, he rejects.
"The eye sense base" and so on is said for the purpose of challenging: "if all were lasting one mind-moment, the eye sense base and so on would arise together with eye-consciousness and so on and then cease."
The other, however, rejects with reference to the arising of consciousness of one gone inside the mother's womb, and acknowledges by the influence of his view with reference to the ongoing process.
The remainder here is clear in meaning.
"If so, lasting one mind-moment" - because they are not permanent, therefore they last one mind-moment - thus he states the reason according to his own preference.
That is as if unsaid.
Commentary on the Treatise on the Momentary.
The twenty-second chapter.