223 Manoramaṃ bimbaṃ. The body.
224 This couplet is also at I, v. 442.
225 The same conversation is recorded at MN I 295,5-17. Though the five faculties are usually identified with the physical sense organs, here they seem to correspond to the five kinds of sense consciousness, for the physical sense faculties cannot properly be said to experience (paccanubhoti ) an objective domain (visaya) or resort (gocara). Their function is only to serve as the media through which consciousness cognizes objects.
226 Manopaṭisaraṇaṃ mano ca nesaṃ gocaravisayaṃ paccanubhoti. Spk explains mano here as the mind-door javana, which experiences the object by way of lust, hatred, or delusion. In my view, this introduces an unnecessary ethical slant on the passage, which I take to be primarily epistemic in import. I interpret the sentence simply to mean that mind-consciousness has access to the data provided by the five types of sense consciousness, which it collates, categorizes, and interprets with its own stock-in-trade, namely, concepts.
227 Spk: Mindfulness is the path, liberation the fruit.
228 Also at 23:1. See III, n. 243. Ee ajjhaparaṃ should be amended. Be has accayāsi, Se accasarā, either of which is acceptable.
229 This is the usual way of declaring him to be a nonreturner. Strangely, however, Spk says this was stated to indicate that he stood in the position of a “jhāna nonreturner,” meaning that he was a stream-enterer who had abandoned the five hindrances by the first jhāna. If he were to die without having fallen away from jhāna he would be reborn in a higher world and attain final Nibbāna there, while if he were to lose the jhāna his destiny would be undetermined. However, he did not lose it, so his destiny was determined; thus the Buddha made this declaration to indicate he was a “jhāna nonreturner.”
230 The statement as such seems to maintain that there is no essential difference between the faculties and the powers, that they are the same five factors viewed from two different angles. Though it is tempting to see the powers (bala) as a more highly developed stage than the faculties, nothing in the canon or the commentaries supports this idea. Spk says that one factor is the faculty of faith “in the sense of exercising control in the characteristic of resolution” (adhimokkhalakkhaṇe indaṭṭhena saddhindriyaṃ), and the power of faith “in the sense of not being shaken by lack of faith” (assaddhiye akampanena saddhābalaṃ). Similarly, the other four are faculties exercising control respectively in regard to application, establishment, nondistraction, and seeing (paggaha, upaṭṭhāna, avikkhepa, dassana); they are powers in that they are unshaken by laziness, forgetfulness, distraction, and ignorance.
231 Na khvāhaṃ ettha bhante bhagavato saddhāya gacchāmi. On the idiom, see IV, n. 321.
232 Spk: In this sutta and the next five, the faculties of the fruit alone (phalindriyān’ eva) are discussed. Spk-pṭ: Because the teaching has come down by way of the supreme fruit.
233 Be and Ee read jātijarāmaraṇaṃ khayan ti kho; Se has jātijarāmaraṇaṃ khayantaṃ kho. The line would make better sense if we read jātijarāmaraṇassa khayantāni kho.
234 Spk calls this “reviewing faith” (paccavekkhaṇasaddhā). Since the disciple has “pierced with wisdom” the things “previously heard,” the precise role of faith here is unclear.
235 In Be and Se, bodhipakkhiyā dhammā, though Ee has bodha-and SS have bodhapakkhikā. In the commentaries bodhipakkhiyā dhammā is the umbrella term for the seven sets of training factors repeatedly taught by the Buddha, but in the suttas the expression has a more flexible, less technical meaning. See the discussion by Gethin, Buddhist Path to Awakening, pp. 289-98.
236 Noble knowledge (ariyañāṇa) obviously represents the wisdom faculty. Spk says that the other four faculties are mixed (mundane and supramundane), while noble knowledge is supramundane [Spk-pṭ: the knowledge of the path]; but it is possible to consider it as mixed too if it is understood to be based on the other four faculties.
237 Ito bahiddhā. That is, outside the Buddha’s dispensation. See DN II 151,10-152,4; MN I 63,29-64,2; Dhp 254-55.
238 Yaṃgatikāni yamparamāni yamphalāni yampariyosānāni na h’ eva kho kāyena phusitvā viharati paññāya ca ativijjha passati. A similar construction is at 46:54 (V 118,22-27 foll.). Woodward translates the above as if the negative na applies to both phrases: “he dwells not in personal experience thereof, nor does he pierce through and through by insight and see them plain” (KS 5:205). This rendering, however, misses the essential difference between the trainee and the arahant: the trainee sees Nibbāna, the final goal in which the five faculties culminate (see 48:57), but cannot enter upon the full experience of it; the arahant both sees the goal and can experience it here and now. The conjunction ca should be understood in the disjunctive sense, as Spk confirms with its paraphrase: “He does not dwell having contacted that, having obtained that, with the name-body (nāmakāya, the corpus of mental factors); but (pana as a gloss on ca) he understands by reviewing wisdom, ‘Beyond there is a faculty—the fruit of arahantship.’ On the plane of the arahant he dwells having obtained this, and he understands by reviewing wisdom, ‘There is a faculty—the fruit of arahantship.’”
239 Yāni kānici padāni bodhāya saṃvattanti. Spk: Whatever Dhamma-steps (dhammapadāni), sections of Dhamma (dhammakoṭṭhāsā), lead to enlightenment.
240 Cittaṃ rakkhati āsavesu ca sāsavesu ca dhammesu. Spk: He does this by preventing the arising of the taints in regard to the phenomena of the three planes.
241 Tathāgate vā Tathāgatasāsane vā paramanipaccākāraṃ pavattamāno pavatteti. Spk offers no help, but the expression paramanipaccākāra occurs in 7:15 (I 178,16); see I, n. 472. We find another example at MN II 120,6 foll., in relation to King Pasenadi’s show of humble devotion towards the Buddha. It is puzzling that the text says a bhikkhu with taints destroyed, i.e., an arahant, should consider some benefit (atthavasaṃ sampassamāno) when he honours the Tathāgata, and the text adds to our puzzlement when just below it explains that the bhikkhu develops (bhāveti) the five faculties, as though he still had work to do to attain the final goal.
242 At 16:13 (II 225,8-12) these are said to be the five things that lead to the nondecay and nondisappearance of the true Dhamma.
243 Pārichattaka. I follow PED, though Liyanaratne explains the kiṃsuka as the coral tree (“South Asian Flora as Reflected in the Abhidhānappadīpikā,” §43). According to PED, the pārichattaka is Erythmia indica, but it is questionable whether the celestial trees mentioned here and in the next two suttas correspond to actual botanical species. See PED for references.
244 The trumpet-flower tree here = cittapāṭali; the silk-cotton tree of the asuras (in the following sutta) = kūṭasimbali.49. Sammappadhānasaṃyutta
245 The terms of the formula are explained according to the sutta method at Vibh 208-10, commented on at Vibh-a 289-96; see too Vism 679 (Ppn 22:35). Briefly: The evil unwholesome states are greed, hatred, delusion, and the defilements associated with them; desire (chanda) is wholesome wish-to-do, wholesome righteous desire; effort, energy, and striving are all terms for energy (viriya); mind is defined by the standard register of terms for citta. The wholesome states are nongreed, nonhatred, nondelusion, and their concomitants. The Abhidhamma analysis, at Vibh 211-14, treats right striving as the energy factor in the supramundane paths, which accomplishes all four functions simultaneously.51. Iddhipādasaṃyutta
246 The formula is analysed below at 51:13. The terms are explained more elaborately, according to the sutta method, at Vibh 216-20. As usual, the Abhidhamma analysis, at Vibh 220-24, treats the iddhipāda as factors of the supramundane paths. Additional explanation is found at Vism 385 (Ppn 12:50-53) and Vibh-a 303-8.Spk resolves iddhipāda into both iddhiyā pādaṃ, “base for spiritual power,” and iddhibhūtaṃ pādaṃ, “base which is spiritual power.” Iddhi, from the verb ijjhati—to prosper, to succeed, to flourish—originally meant success, but by the time of the Buddha it had already acquired the special nuance of spiritual su
ccess or, even more to the point, spiritual power. This can be of two kinds: success in the exercise of the iddhividha, the supernormal powers (as at 51:11, 14, 17), and success in the endeavour to win liberation. The two converge in arahantship, which is both the sixth abhiññā (in continuity with the supernormal powers) and the final fruit of the Noble Eightfold Path. A full treatise on the various kinds of iddhi mentioned in the canon is at Paṭis 205-14.
The analysis at 51:13 makes it clear that an iddhipāda contains three main components: concentration (samādhi), the four volitional formations of striving (padhānasaṅkhārā), and the particular factor responsible for generating concentration—desire (chanda), energy (viriya), mind (citta), and investigation (vīmaṃsā). While concentration and striving are common to all four iddhipāda, it is the last-named factors that differentiate them as fourfold.
247 See n. 175.
248 The incident is included in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta at DN II 102-7, with Spk here parallel to Sv II 554-58. The passage also occurs at Ud 62-64, commented on at Ud-a 322-30.
249 Kappaṃ vā tiṭṭheyya kappāvasesaṃ vā. Spk glosses kappa, “aeon,” as āyukappa, “the life aeon,” explained as the full normal life span of human beings at a particular time, presently a hundred years. Kappāvasesaṃ, “the remainder of the aeon,” is explained as a little more than the normal life span of a hundred years. Spk mentions the view of one Mahāsīva Thera, who held that the Buddha could live on for the rest of this bhaddakappa, “excellent cosmic aeon,” only to reject this proposition on the basis of the ancient commentaries. Mil 141 also interprets kappa here as āyukappa , perhaps drawing from the same source as the commentaries. Nevertheless, nowhere else in the Nikāyas is kappa used in the sense of a normal human life span, and there seems to be no valid reason to ascribe to kappa here a different meaning from the usual one, i.e., a cosmic aeon. Whether the present passage is genuine or an interpolation, and whether meditative success can confer such extraordinary powers, are different questions about which conflicting opinions have been voiced.
250 Yathā taṃ Mārena pariyuṭṭhitacitto. Spk: Māra is able to obsess the mind of anyone who has not entirely abandoned all cognitive distortions (vipallāsa), and Ānanda had not done so (being still a stream-enterer, he was still subject to distortions of mind and perception, though not of views). Māra obsessed his mind by displaying a frightful sight, and when he saw it the elder failed to catch the hint given him by the Buddha.
251 Interestingly, no such earlier conversation between the Buddha and Māra is recorded elsewhere in the Nikāyas. Among the terms describing the disciples, pattayogakkhemā, “secure from bondage,” is not found in Be nor mentioned in Spk (though all the other terms are glossed), but it does come in Se and Ee. The parallel DN II 104-5 excludes it, but DN III 125,19 has it.
252 Sappāṭihāriyaṃ dhammaṃ desenti. Spk does not explain the derivation of sappāṭihāriya but paraphrases: “They will teach the Dhamma, having made it emancipating.” Spk-pṭ expands on this: “They will explain the Dhamma with reasons and examples so that it conveys the intended meaning; they will convey the ninefold supramundane Dhamma.”
253 See 12:65 (II 107,2-4) and II, n. 182.
254 Āyusaṅkhāraṃ ossaji. Spk: The Blessed One did not relinquish his vital formation in the way one drops a clod of earth with one’s hand, but he made a determination, “I will enter fruition attainment for only three months more, but not beyond that.” Spk does not comment on āyusaṅkhāra, but it is probably identical with jīvitindriya, the life faculty, and with jīvitasaṅkhāra (at 47:9, V 152,29) in its role of maintaining the future continuity of life. Āyusaṅkhārā (plural) occurs at 20:6 (II 266,19), and there is a discussion about the term at MN I 295,36-296,6.
255 The verse is difficult, especially the first couplet. It is commented on identically by Spk, Sv II 557-58, Mp IV 153-54, and Ud-a 329-30. These commentaries offer two alternative modes of interpretation, one taking tulaṃ and atulaṃ as contrasted opposites, the other taking tulaṃ as a present participle and atulaṃ and sambhavaṃ as the contrasted opposites. I translate from Spk:“(1) Tulaṃ is tulitaṃ, measured, that is delimited (paricchinnaṃ ), because it is directly apparent even to dogs and jackals, etc.; this is sense-sphere kamma. Atulaṃ is what is not measurable (not comparable), because there is no other mundane kamma like it; this is exalted kamma (mahaggata-kamma , the kamma of the jhānas and formless attainments). Or else: tulaṃ is sense-sphere and form-sphere kamma, atulaṃ formless-sphere kamma. Or tulaṃ is (kamma) with few results, atulaṃ kamma with many results. ‘Continued existence’ (sambhavaṃ) is the cause of continued existence, meaning the amassment or heaping up (of kamma). ‘The formation of existence’ (bhavasaṅkhāraṃ) is the formation (which engenders) renewed existence.… This is meant: He rejected mundane kamma consisting of the comparable and incomparable (measurable and measureless), which (kamma) is called ‘continued existence’ in the sense that it produces results and ‘the formation of existence’ in the sense that it engenders (future) existence. ‘The sage’ is the Buddha-sage (buddhamuni); ‘self-existence’ (attasambhavaṃ) is the defilements produced within oneself. Like a great warrior at the head of battle, rejoicing within and concentrated, he broke, like a coat of armour, self-existence and the defilements.
“(2) Or alternatively: Tulaṃ is (the present participle) tulento, ‘comparing’ = tīrento, ‘scrutinizing.’ ‘The incomparable’ and ‘continued existence’ are, respectively, Nibbāna and existence; ‘the formation of existence’ is kamma leading to existence. ‘The sage relinquished’: comparing the five aggregates as impermanent with Nibbāna, their cessation, as permanent, and having seen the danger in existence and the advantage in Nibbāna, the Buddha-sage relinquished the ‘formation of existence,’ which is the root-cause of the aggregates, by means of the noble path, which effects the destruction of kamma; as it is said, ‘It leads to the destruction of kamma.’”
So the commentary. Initially it seemed to me very unlikely that tulaṃ and atulaṃ should function in grammatically distinct ways, and I therefore inclined to the former interpretation, in principle if not in details. On reflection, however, I now believe that the verse is deliberately playing upon tulaṃ and atulaṃ as different grammatical forms rather than as a pair of opposites. Atulaṃ (or its cognates) occurs elsewhere in the texts: at Sn 85b atulyo describes a teacher of the path (reading maggakkhāyī with Be), probably the Buddha; at Sn 683a, it is used in apposition to the Bodhisatta, the future Buddha; at Thī 201a atuliyaṃ describes the akampitaṃ dhammaṃ, “the unshaken state,” presumably Nibbāna. Nevertheless, though I believe the commentary’s second explanation is correct grammatically, I disagree with its interpretation.
In my understanding, sambhavaṃ here does not mean continued existence in saṃsāra, the cause of which the Buddha had already ended with his attainment of enlightenment forty-five years earlier. Here the word means, rather, the continuation of his present life until the end of the kappa. Bhavasaṅkhāra is not “kamma leading to new existence,” but the vital formation (āyusaṅkhāra) that the Buddha has just rejected. On this interpretation, the meaning that emerges from the verse is perfectly consonant with the preceding prose passage: Having compared the prospect of continuing on until the end of the aeon with the prospect of attaining final Nibbāna, “the incomparable,” the Buddha opted for the latter; and he did so by mindfully relinquishing his vital formation, the same life formation (as jīvitasaṅkhāra) that earlier, during his illness, he had resolved to maintain (see 47:9). Thus by rejecting the bhavasaṅkhāra that might have sustained him until the end of the aeon, the Buddha renounced the extension of his life.
On the second couplet Spk says: “He rejoiced within by way of insight, and was concentrated by way of serenity. Thus, from the preliminary stage onwards, by the power of serenity and insight he broke the entire mass of defilements that had enveloped his whole individual existence like a coat of armour and that was called
‘self-existence’ (attasambhavaṃ) because it originates within oneself. When there are no more defilements, in the absence of rebirth kamma is said to be relinquished; thus he cast off kamma by the abandoning of defilements. Since there is no fear for one who has abandoned defilements, he relinquished his vital formation fearlessly. The Buddha ‘uttered this inspired utterance’ to show his freedom from fear.”
There is also an ancient commentary on this verse at Nett 61. This commentary takes tulaṃ as the saṅkhāradhātu, the totality of conditioned things, and atulaṃ as the nibbānadhātu. Apparently here tulaṃ and atulaṃ are taken as by-forms of tullaṃ and atullaṃ respectively.
256 A detailed analysis of the terms is found below at 51:20.
257 Anekavihitaṃ iddhividhaṃ paccanubhoti. This passage shows the exercise of the supernormal powers to be the fruit of developing the four iddhipādas. The six direct knowledges appear above at 12:70 and 16:9. The mundane modes of supernormal power are analysed in detail in Vism chaps. 12 and 13.
258 Spk glosses desire (chanda) as the “wish-to-do” (kattukaṃyatāchanda ). See too Vibh 216,27-29.
The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Page 213
