3.2 Of the Quality Called Ariyan (KV3.2)

Controverted Point: (a) That the power of a Tathāgata, e.g., in discerning as it really is the causal occasion of anything, and its contradictory, is Ariyan.

Theravādin: If it be so, you should also affirm of that power that it is the (Ariyan) Path, or other Ariyan doctrine, such as Fruit, Nibbāna, one of the Four Paths to Arahantship, or of the Four Fruits thereof, one of the Applications in Mindfulness, Supreme Efforts, Steps to Potency, Controlling Powers, Forces, or Factors of Enlightenment. But you do not agree to this.

Or is the concept of Emptiness the object of that power? If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposition. If you assent, then you must affirm that one who is attending to the exercise of this power attends also to Emptiness. If you deny, you cannot affirm that Emptiness is the object of the power in your proposition. If you assent, then you are claiming a combination of two (mental) contacts, two consciousnesses—which of course you deny.

A similar argument holds good for the other two concepts of the “Signless” and the “Not-hankered-after”.

Or, to argue conversely, you admit that (1) the Applications in Mindfulness are Ariyan, and have as their object the concepts of “Emptiness”, the “Signless”, and the “Not-hankered-after”. But you deny that these are the object of that power of a Tathāgata. Hence that power cannot be classified under things “Ariyan”.

This argument applies also to (2) the Supreme Efforts and (3–6) the Steps to Potency, etc. (PTS CS 3.2.1).

Andhaka: You say then that my proposition is wrong—that it is not Ariyan, and has not as its object Emptiness, the Signless, or the Not-hankered-after. Yet you do not deny that the six foregoing doctrines are Ariyan, and also have that Threefold object—why deny the same of that power of which my proposition speaks?

Theravādin: Nay, why do you maintain that the power of a Tathāgata, in discerning as it really is the decrease and rebirth of beings is Ariyan, while you are not prepared to class that power with things we call Ariyan—the Path, and so on?

The arguments in PTS CS 3.2.2–PTS CS 3.2.6 are then repeated for the Andhaka's propositions: that the other powers of a Tathāgata discerning the decease and rebirth of beings as they really are, etc., are Ariyan.

Andhaka: You admit then that the tenth of the “Powers” ascribed to a Tathāgata—insight into the extinction as it really is of intoxicants—is Ariyan, but you deny it in the case of the two powers named above. How can you affirm it of the tenth?

The Andhaka puts the case negatively.

As in PTS CS 3.2.13–PTS CS 3.2.14, with the addition of the “Three Signs”, as “object”, added to the predicate “is Ariyan”.

The Points of Controversy, an English translation of the Pali Abhidhamma Kathāvatthu. Translated by Shwe Zan Aung and C.A.F. Rhys Davids. First published by Pali Text Society, 1915.

This SuttaCentral edition was prepared by Manfred Wierich and Ven. Vimala and proofread by Josephine Tobin. Some changes were introduced:

Abbreviations, i.e., those of cited works and the participants in the controversies, were expanded.

Cross-references were linked.

Some typographic changes were introduced, among others, i.e.: the phonetic symbol “ŋ” was changed to the Pāli diacritical letter “ṃ”, “ô” to “o”, single quotes to double quotes, and “:—” to “:”.

Letter-spacing with fixed spaces was replaced with bold font.

The corrigenda were merged into the text. Some could not be resolved, though.

This electronic version is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC 3.0) as found here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

All copyright is owned by the Pali Text Society. See also the statement under http://www.palitext.com/ → Publications → Copyright Announcement. For non-commercial use only.