MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I-I

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

            I have read carefully the Ven. Kheminda Thera’s Reply to my Rejoinder I–I, II, III and IV in the March, April, May and June, 1967, issues of World Buddhism.

            I have also read the Ven. Kheminda’s Reply to my Rejoinder II, in the July, August and September issues. I shall deal with his Reply II in due course. Here I shall confine myself to his Reply to my Rejoinder I–II, III and IV.

            In these articles the Ven. Kheminda makes, in the main, the following allegations and assertions:

            I. That he is inspired, not by prejudice, but by the instruction of the Buddha given in the Mohæpadesa Sutta.

            2. (a) The Five Hindrances are the weakeners of wisdom and so vipassanæ insight is possible only when they are abandoned. (b) The four foundations of mindfullness should be developed only after the abandonment of the hindrances. They can be abandoned only by means of jhæna and so vipassanæ contemplation should be begun only after the development of jhæna.

            3. (a) Any yogø, samathayænika or vipassanæyænika, develops samatha at the stage of Purification of Mind, and vipassanæ beings with Purification of View, and (b) only at the latter stage the terms samathayænika and vipassanæyænika occur for the first time.

            4. The development of the Noble Eightfold Path is described in two ways: (i) by way of the three aggregates of virtue, concentration and wisdom; (ii) by way of the seven purifications. In both these methods the development of insight begins at the third stage of Purification of View. Meanwhile the first two stages have already been developed.

            5. After developing virtue it is not possible to develop wisdom, skipping concentration. Should vipassanæ be developed without samatha the stages of Purification of Mind and Purification of View would be reversed.

            6. Vipassanæ cannot be developed before the development of Purifications of Virtue and Mind.

            7. Because (a) Purification of Mind arises after insight; (b) Purification on Mind is given a new definition; (c) Purification of Mind takes the place of Purification of View; (d) The Ven. Næyanaponika says that this has been introduced into the practice by the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw; it is called a new method.

            8. In translating “vuttappa’kæraµ samathaµ anuppædetvæ va, ti” the word “previously” is an unjustified introduction because the phrase means “just without producing the said serenity”, eva meaning “just”.

            9. Only jhæna concentration is Right Concentration (sammæsamædhi magga³ga). Without this concentration the knowledge and vision of things as they really are (yathæbhþtañæ¼a-dassana) is not possible.

            10. Concentration developed after insight is called vipassanæ sampayutta samædhi or nibbedhabhægiya samædhi. It is not called citta visuddhi.

            11. Upacæra (access), appanæ (fixed) and  kha¼ika (momentary) concentrations do not arise after insight.

            12. The Commentary to the Dhammadæyæda Sutta describes only that area of development of the yogø’s practice which begins with insight. It does not cover the whole range of his development. It does not even touch the first two stages of the yogø’s development. The confusion that seeks to include in the term Purification of Mind all forms of concentration that arise in the course of development of contemplation is due to the failure to locate this area of development.

            13. Cittaµ Samædahanto is explained in the Commentary to this Sutta as being concerned only with samathayænika, not with suddhavipassanæyænika. So kha¼ika cittaekaggatæ referred to therein is not concerned with suddhavipassanæyænika.

            14. Purification of Mind is the proximate cause of insight, and without this proximate cause, can its result, i.e. Purification of View where insight begins, even come to be? It is a fictitious insight that this new teaching speaks of. What it does for the yogø who accepts its method is to halt his progress at the end of Purification of Virtue.

            Now I am going to deal with the points raised by the Ven. Kheminda in serial order.

ANSWER TO NO.1

            The Ven. Kheminda assures me that he is inspired, not by prejudice but by the instruction given in the Mahæpadesa Sutta. Referring to his lop-sided view of Momentary Concentration and Purification of Mind, I asked: “Was he inspired by prejudice?” I cannot see any reason how he can justify his lop-sided view by an appeal to the Mahæpadesa Suttæ. As a matter of fact, his Reply to my Rejoinder I, II, III and IV contain contentions that, by and large, go against the Buddha’s instruction in this Sutta. This will become more clear in my answers to his allegations.

            Judging by his wholesale quotation of this Sutta, he shows no clear comprehension of the passage that constitutes its essence, in which the Buddha instructs that, one must accept as his words if they fit in with the Dhamma (Ti-pi¥aka) and accord with the Vinaya, which destroy defiling passions such as ræga, and reject them if they do not, as described in the Mahæpadesa Sutta, Sañcetaniyavagga, Catukka Nipæta, A³guttara Nikæya and Mahævagga,   Døgha Nikæya.

ANSWER TO NO. 2 (A)

            The Ven. Kheminda writes that five hindrances are the weakeners of wisdom and so vipassanæ insight is possible only when they are abandoned. This is in accord with the instruction in the Mahæpadesa Sutta, and must be accepted without any reservations. Neither the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw nor I have ever written to the contrary. Although it is quite clear that our writings are in consonance with the Buddha’s teachings, the Ven. Kheminda, not being able to comprehend them, is inclined to allege that we write to the contrary. This allegation reveals his weak point.

ANSWER TO NO.2 (B)

            The Ven. Kheminda asserts that the four foundations of mindfullness should be developed only after the abandonment of the hindrances, and that they can be abandoned only by means of jhæna, and so vipassanæ contemplation should be begun only after the development of jhæna. These assertions do not fit in with the Buddha’s instruction in the Mahæpadesa Sutta-As they are diametrically opposite to the Buddha’s instruction I cannot accept them.

            I shall answer both points together. Bereft of jhæna, many a disciple of the Buddha became an arahant after abandoning the five hindrances by means of the contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness. This fact is well–known, being in accordance with the discourses of the Buddha. However, as the Ven. Kheminda is not aware of even this well–known fact, I feel it is my duty to explain it.

            There are many discourses in which the Buddha enjoined upon his disciples, awaiting to hear instructions on contemplation to establish themselves first in virtue and then develop the four foundations of mindfullness. Considering that in these discourses the Buddha did not say that the disciples must develop concentration after establishing themselves in virtue, it is obvious that the hindrances can be abandoned while developing vipassanæ without samatha. When the hindrances are abandoneð, Purification of Mind is surely attained.

            The Ven. Kheminda should ponder well the following passage taken from Bhikkhu Sutta, AmbaPæ¹i Vagga. Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta, The Buddha said thus to the bhikkhu asking for contemplation instruction:

            “Well then, monk, you must purify the rudiments in good states. And what are the rudiments in good states? They are virtue that is truly pure, and straight view. Now, monk, when your virtue shall be truly pure and your view straight, thenceforward, monk, leaning on virtue, established in virtue, you can cultivate the four stations of mindfullness in a threefold way. What four? Herein monk, as regards your own self, in body contemplating body (as transient) do you abide ardent, composed and mindful, having restrained the dejection in the world that arises from coveting. Or, as regards externals, in body contemplating body... in feelings contemplating feelings .... in mind contemplating mind ... in mind-states contemplating mind–states do you abide ardent, composed and mindful, having restrained the dejection that arises in the world owing to coveting .... And that monk was yet another one of the Arahants. (The Book of Kindred Sayings V.P.T.S. pages 121 and 122. III, I III. Monk), Again, in the Bæhiya Sutta. Nælanda Vagga, Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta. the Buddha said:

            “In such case, Bahiya, you must purify the rudiments in good states. And what are the rudiments in good states? It is virtue that is truly pure and straight view. Now, Bahiya, when your virtue shall be truly pure and your view straight, thenceforward, leaning on virtue, established in virtue, you can cultivate the four stations of mindfullness ... And Bahiya was yet another (one) of the Arahants. (The Book of Kindred Sayings, V, page 145 XLVII, II, V. Bahiya.)” (2)

            The Buddha said likewise in Uttiya Sutta, Nælanda Vagga, Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta (ibid, page 146) (3)

            Yet again in the Pætimokkha Sutta, Amata Vagga, Satipa¥¥hænæ Saµyutta, the Buddha said:

            “Herein, monk, do you dwell self–controlled according to the self–control of the Obligations, well equipped in your range of practice, seeing danger in minutest faults, and, undertaking the precepts, do you train yourself therein ... Now, monk, when you have dwelt self–controlled ...., then leaning on virtue, established in virtue, you should cultivate the four stations of mindfullness .... And that monk was yet another (one) of the Arahants, (The Book of Kindred Sayings, V, pages 163 & 164, XLVII, III, V, VI, obligation). (4).

            The Ven. Kheminda should not fail to note, and bear in mind, that these discourses do not contain any inkling of the necessity of developing samatha to abandon the hindrances before one develops the four foundations of mindfullness.

            In the Duccarita Sutta, Amata Vagga, Satipa¥¥hæna, Saµyutta, the Buddha said that the disciples ought to develop virtue by avoiding evil conduct, and by cultivating good conduct, and having established in virtue, to develop the four foundations of mindfullness. It is shown therein that those who carried out the Buddha’s instructions attained to Arahantship. (5)

            In all the discourses mentioned above the Buddha instructed his disciples to establish themselves in virtue first, and having established in virtue, to develop the four foundations of mindfullness. The Buddha did not instruct, as maintained by the Ven. Kheminda, to develop jhæna with a view to abandoning the hindrances before the development of the four foundations of mindfullness is begun.

            Judging by this, it is crystal clear that the generally accepted view that, virtue having been established, the hindrances are abandoned in the course of contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness resulting in Purification of Mind, is in accord with the teachings of the Buddha. The Ven. Kheminda’s view that the hindrances can be abandoned only by jhæna, not by contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness, is not in accord with the aforesaid discourses as well as with the Mahæpadesa Sutta, and so runs counter to the Buddha’s teaching.

            The Ven. Kheminda, clinging to his ill–conceived view and reiterating it in his writings, is defying the Buddha’s authority. To such persons who points out what is not Dhamma as Dhamma, what is Dhamma as not Dhamma, the Buddha said categorically thus in Pamadhadi Vagga II, Eka Nipæta, A³guttara Nikæya: “Such conduct of theirs is to the loss of many folk .... They beget great demerit and cause the disappearance of this true Dhamma”. “The Book of Gradual Saying I page 13, 1, 10, 33. Not–Dhamma (a) (b)”

            In the discourses referred above, it is stated in unmistakable terms that monks, such as Bahiya and Uttiya, who, having established themselves in virtue and developed the four foundations of mindfullness, attained to Arahantship. Therefore, it is manifest that, having established in virtue, one can begin contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness straightaway, without having to develop concentration by any other means; and that momentary access and fixed concentration can be aptly developed in the course of contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness resulting in Purification of Mind and realisation of magga-phalañæ¼a.

            In this regard, that momentary, access and fixed concentration can be developed in the course of contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness is positively stated in Sæla Sutta, Ambapæla Vagga, Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta, as well as in its Commentary and Sub–Commentary:

    “Monks, those who are novices, not long gone forth (form home) late-comers into this Norm and Discipline, such monks should be aroused and admonished for, and established in, the cultivation of the four stations of mindfullness. Of what four and how? (Ye should say this:)

    “Come ye, friends do ye abide contemplating body (as transient) ardent, composed and one–pointed, of tranquil mind, calmed down, of concentrated mind, for insight into body as it really is. In feelings .... in mind ... in mind–states ... as they really are”.

            (Book of Kindred Sayings; V. page 123, III, I, IV, Sæla (7) Its Commentary explains thus:)

            “One–pointed” means being one–pointed by momentary concentration. “Calmed–down, of concentrated mind” means being calmed down, of concentrated mind, by access and fixed concentration. In this Sutta, the foundation of mindfullness developed by the newly–ordained monks as well as by the arahants is that preceding ariya magga phala (pubbabhæga), and the foundation of mindfullness developed by the seven sekha (those who are in training) is mixed (missaka)–(8)

NOTES

            (1) S. (III, 124) Tasmæt’iha tvaµ bhikkhu adim’eva visodhehi kusalesu dhammesu. Ko c’adi kusalænaµ dhammænaµ? Sølañca suvisudddaµ di¥¥hi ca ujuka. Yato kho te bhikkhu sølañca suvisuddhaµ bhavissati di¥¥hi ca ajuka, tato tvaµ bhikkhu sølaµ nissaya søle patitthaya cattæro satipa¥¥hæne tividhena bhaveyyasi ...... Annataro ca paña so bhikkhu arahatom ahosi.

            (2) S, (III, 43), Tasmæt’iha tvaµ bahiya adimeva visodhehi kusalesu dhammesu ...tato tvaµ bahiva sølaµ nissaya søle patitthaya cattæro satipa¥¥hæne bhaveyyasi ... Annataro ca pañaayasma bahiyo arahataµ ahosi.

            (3) S. (III, 144). The same Pæ¹i as above.

            (4) (III, 163) Tasmæt iha tvaµ bhikkhu adim’eva visodhehi kusalesu dhammesu. Ko c’adi kusalænaµ dhammænaµ? Idha tvaµ bhikkhu patimokkhasamvarasamvuto viharahi acaragocaasam-panno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassavi samadaya sikkhati sikkhapadesu. Iato kho tvaµ bhikkhu patimokkhasamvarasamvuto viharissasi acaragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassavi samadaya sikkhissasi sikkhapadesu, tato tvaµ bhikkhu sølaµ nissaya søle patitthaya cattæro satipa¥¥hæne bhaveyyasi ... Annataro ca paña so bhikkhu arahataµ ahosi.

            (5) S. (III, 164) Yato kho tvaµ bhikkhu kæyaduccaritaµ pahæya kæyasucaritaµ bhavessasi, vacøduccaritaµ .... manoduccaritaµ pahæya manosucaritaµ bhavessasi tato tvaµ bhikkhu sølaµ nissaya søle patitthaya cattæro satipa¥¥hæne bhaveyyasi ... Annataro ca paña so bhikkhu arahataµ ahosi.

            (6) A. (I,18) Ye te bhikkhave bhikkhu adhammaµ ‘dhammo’ti dipentiadhamman’ti dipenti, bhikkhave bhikkhu bahujanaahitaya patipanna bahujjanaasukhaya bahuno jænassa anatthaya ahitaya dukkhaya devamanussanam,bahunca te bhikkhave bhikkhu apunaµ pasavanti, te c’iman saddhammaµ anataradhapenti.

            (7) S. (III), 125) Ye te bbhikkhave bhikkhu navo acirapabbajita adhunagata imaµ dhammavinayam, te vo bhikkhave bhikkhu catunnaµ satipa¥¥hænamaµ bhavunaya samadapetabba nivesetabba patitthapetabba: “etha tumhe ævuso kæye kæyanusupassino viharatha atapino saµpajæna ekodiduta vippassanacitta samahita ekaggacitta kæyassa yathæbhþtaµ nanaya, vedanæsu vedanupassino ...... vedanænaµ yathæbhþtaµ nanaya, dhammesu dhammanupassano ... dhammanasem yathæbhþtum nanaya” ti.

            (8) SC. (III), 234) Ekodiduta ti ahunika–samadina ekaggabhþta. Samahita ekaggacitta ti upacærappanavasena samma thapirecittu ca ekaggacitta ca. Imasmim sutte navakabhikkhuhi c’eva khinasavehi ca bhavith satipa¥¥hæna. pubbabaga sekhehi bhavita missaka.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I-II

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra Agga Mahæ Pa¤Ðita

(Myanmar)

            Judging by the Sæla Sutta, Ambapæla Vagga, Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta and Commentary, the Ven. Kheminda cannot help but accept that momentary, access and fixed concentrations, all three, can be developed in the course of contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness. Nevertheless, the Ven. Kheminda, who is very skilful in transferring momentary concentration from one place to the other, may, of his own accord, like to mix up the momentary concentration explained in this Commentary with the concentration partaking of penetration (nibbedhabhægiya samædhi), and, in a flurry of confusion, assign it close to magga.

            Considering that this Sutta also makes mention of the newly ordained monks beginning to contemplate on the four foundations of mindfullness with a view to seeing things as they really are, the Ven. Kheminda ought to understand that he cannot transport, as he may like, the momentary concentration from its rightful place of Purification of Mind. That it is not transferable in the off–hand manner is made clear by the Sub–Commentary to the Sutta, which explains further thus:

            By “one–pointed” is meant preliminary concentration producing access jhæna. By “calmed down” is meant access concentration. By “of concentrated mind” is meant well-developed and fully-mastered concentration. (9)

            The momentary concentration producing access jhæna mentioned in this Sub–Commentary can be developed by means of contemplation of any of the twenty one sections of the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta. Fixed concentration can be developed only by means of contemplation of respiration and repulsiveness, because the Commentary to the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta specifically determines thus: “Only two sections are meditation–subjects producing fixed concentration (appanæ kamma¥¥hænæni), and the remaining sections are meditation–subjects producing access concentration (upacæra kamma¥¥hænæni)” (10)

            I notice that Ven. Kheminda accepts the view expressed in the Visuddhimagga that the hindrances can be abandoned by access concentration. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda cannot deny that the hindrances can be abandoned by means of contemplation of any of the twenty one sections of the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta, because any of them can develop access concentration. With the abandonment of the hindrances Purification of Mind is attained, Purification of Mind would surely lead to five Purifications pertaining to wisdom, namely Purification of View, etc. If so, is there any necessity to develop jhæna in order to abandon the hindrances before one begins contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness?

            Especially, I should like to point out that the five hindrances are still present in the yogø until he begins to practise contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness by which they are dispelled, and that this fact is most explicitly proved by the following passages in the Outline and the Five Hindrances Sections of the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta and its Commentary.

    “Herein, a monk dwells practising body–contemplation on the body, ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having dispelled covetousness and grief concerning the world ... feeling contemplation ... mind–contemplation ........ mind–objects–contemplation .....”

    (The Heart of Buddhist Meditation, Ña¼aponika-Thera, page 117).(11)

    “Herein, monks, when sense–desire is present in him, the monk knows, ‘there is sense–desire in me’, or when sense–desire is absent, he knows, ‘there is no sense–desire in me’. He knows how the arising of non–arisen sense–desire comes to be; he knows how the rejection of arisen sense–desire comes to be; and he knows how the non–arising in the future of the rejected sense–desire comes to be ... anger ... sloth and torpor ... agitation and worry ... doubt ...” (ibid, page 123) (12)

            The Commentary to the Outline of the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta explains: “Covetousness stands for sensual desire, and grief, for anger. As sensual desire and anger are the principal hindrances the abandoning of the hindrances is stated by the overcoming of covetousness and grief.” (13)

            The Commentary adds: “The fruit of contemplation is stated by the overcoming of covetousness and grief.” (14)

            If only the Ven. Kheminda can grasp fully the letter and the spirit of the passages culled from the Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta, its Commentary and Sub–Commentary, and also from the Mahæ–Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta and Its Commentary, he should he able to understand that although samatha is not developed, the hindrances can be abandoned by means of contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness, and magga–phalañæ¼a can be attained. If he understands so, he should regret that because he could not grasp fully the relevant Pæ¹i Texts, their Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries, he had said in a hazy manner that the hindrances could be abandoned only by means of jhæna. In any case his view, being not in line with the relevant Pæ¹i Texts, their Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries, must be considered, to use his own words, to be “not in the realm of fact but of fiction”.

            The Ven. Kheminda quotes a few Suttas to prove that the hindrances can be abandoned only by means of jhæna. As a matter of fact, they are not relevant to the matter under discussion. Some of the Suttas he quoted are concerned only with Samathayænika and others do not even deal with the order of progress in contemplation. I shall explain further.

            As regards the Buddha’s discourses explaining the practice leading to Nibbæna, the Visuddhimagga states as follows:

            In some instances (first category) this path of purification is taught by insight alone, according as it is said:

“Formations are all impermanent:
“When he sees thus with understanding
“And turns away from what is ill,
“that is the path to purity” (Dh. 227)

            And in some instances (second category) by jhæna and understanding according as it is said:

“He is near unto Nibbæna
“In whom are jhæna and understanding”

            (Dh. 362) Bhikkhu Ñæ¼aµoli: The Path of Purification, (page 2 & 3), (15)

            In the above translation, ‘insight alone’ stands for ‘Vipassanæ mattava-sen‘eva’. Here it must be pointed out that the word eva emphasises the exclusion of samatha because samatha is the opposite number in the pair: samatha vipassanæ. It is not meant to exclude virtue which is not the opposite number of vipassanæ. Again, because the word matta conveys the sense of distinction, it also emphasises the exclusion of access and fixed concentration, which are distinctive. It does not exclude simple concentration, for no insight comes about without momentary concentration. (16)

            The discourses such as the Kimsukopama Sutta, Hiri-ottapa Sutta and Uttiya Sutta belong to the second category. Therefore, I say that they are not all relevant to the matter under discussion, the question of vipassanæyænika and kha¼ika-samædhi. It appears that the Ven. Kheminda has not come across the Suttas treating with pure vivipassanæ, such as the Mælukyaputta and Bahiya (Dæruciriya) Suttas, which belong to the first category. Granted that he has come across them, he does not seem to have grasped their import fully. I would like to urge him to find out more discourses of this kind and study them.

            To show that the hindrances can be abandoned only by means of jhæna and vøpassanæ is developed only after the attainment of jhæna, the Ven. Kheminda refers to a sentence in the Kimsukopama Sutta: “Sighaµ dutayuganti kho bhikkhu samathavipassananetaµ adhivanam.” But I have pointed out that this sutta belongs to the second category and, therefore, is not relevant to the issue.

            The Ven. Kheminda cites the Mahæsaccaka Sutta. If, as he thinks, this sutta purports to show the order of progress in contemplation, it is tantamount to saying that after the development of jhæna, one must have also developed special knowledges of recollection of past lives and diving sight before one can begin vipassanæ contemplation.

            As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that special knowledges (abhiññas) are not at all necessary for vipassanæ contemplation. The Ven. Kheminda should have known that the order of progress described in this sutta is not meant for every yogø. In this sutta the Buddha was telling Saccaka the order of his progressive realisation of Truth, and it is not meant to be taken as the order of progress for all types of yogøs. It is a matter for great pity that the Ven. Kheminda fails to analyse the sutta as a whole but instead picks out a passage that suits him and commits there by such an error.

            Again, referring to anupubbasikkhæ, anupubbakiriyæ, and anupubbapatipadæ of the Pahærada Sutta, the Ven. Kheminda points out that “through gradual training gradual work and through gradual practice truly penetration of knowledge occurs, not abruptly”. The order of progress, as he points out is correct, but that the samædhi referred to here covers not only upacæra samædhi and appanæ samædhi but also kha¼ika samædhi is testified by the existence of suddha-vipassanæyænika arahants and sukkha-vipassaka arahants.

            As a matter of fact, in the Pahærada Sutta the Buddha makes a comparison of his Sæsanæ with the ocean; it does not purport to have been given with an emphasis on the progressive order of Søla, Samædhi and Paññæ. As the Ven. Kheminda maintains, if it purports to show such an order of progress, it will amount to saying that before the development of concentration and insight, dhuta³gas must be practised in accordance with the Commentary which explains thus: “anupubbakiriyæ (gradual work) means 13 dhuta³gas”.

            The Ven. Kheminda cites a passage from the Cþ¹ahatthipadopama Sutta commentary, a passage that, as he believes, fits in he feels this Sutta purports to show the order of progress in contemplation. He should have known that this Sutta treats with going forth, observance of virtue of Pætimokkha, restraints of sense faculties, mindfullness with clear comprehension, development of jhæna to abandon the hindrances, special knowledge of recollection of past lives and divine sight and finally with knowledge of extinction of cankers, comparing the consummation to a footprint of an elephant. If this order of progress were to be followed by one and all, it is obvious that one must renounce the world before one begins contemplation and also that no layman can ever hope to tread the noble path.

            It may be observed that Ven. Kheminda’s lay disciples might not be able to accept this incorrect interpretation of this Sutta because he has virtually closed the path to maggaphalañæ¼a as far as they are concerned. It must be pointed out that in this order of progress asammoha sampajañña vipassanæ (mindfullness with clear comprehension contemplation) precedes samatha, and so the Ven. Kheminda’s assertion that samatha must precede vipassanæ falls to the ground. (The Ven. Kheminda who takes the sutta literally cannot possibly deny this point).

            Again, to show that the four foundations of mindfullness should be developed after the abandonment of hindrances, the Ven. Kheminda quotes a paragraph from the Nælanda Sutta. But the teachings in this Sutta deal with the order of progress followed by those who have to cover the whole range of development for reaching the highest stage of Buddhahood. That is why it contains a specific practice, “after the abandonment of the hindrances,” in accordance with that of Samathayænika. The readers must have understood that every Buddha is Tevijja samathayænika and that there are no suddhavipassanæyænika Buddhas, no sukkhavipasska Buddhas, and no Buddhas, bereft of abhiññas (special knowledges). (17)

            The suddhivipassanæyænika yogø, the subject under discussion, is the lowest of several types of yogøs, and he needs not develop jhæna particularly to dispel the hindrances before the contemplation of the four foundations of mindfullness. He dispels them while contemplating on the four foundations of mindfullness. He has to do so because he is not possessed of special powers. He is like a person, who, having no boat to cross by, has to swim across the river.(18)

            In point of fact, this Sutta shows the manner in which the Venerable Særiputta came to know how the Buddhas attained omniscience and also his address to the Buddha that he could only by inference know the equality of the Buddhas in all respects. The Buddha, at the conclusion of his discourse to the Venerable Særiputta, said to the effect that when the puthujanas (worldling) came to hear this Nælanda Sutta, they would be able to overcome their doubts about the Buddha by thinking in this wise: “Even the sharp-witted Særiputta, recognised as the highest in knowledge by the Buddha himself among his disciples, cannot probe the mind of the Buddha, and so the Buddha is incomparable”. (19)

            I do not know how the Ven. Kheminda understands this Sutta, because in the March and July issues of World Buddhism he has boldly but wrongly translated the word tathægata in the phrase “tathægate ka³kha væ vimati væ” as “method of teaching.” While I have no intention to allege that the Ven. Kheminda does not even know the meaning of the word tathægata, I must place before the readers his translating of this word “tathægata” and that of the Pæ¹i Text Society.

            The Ven-Kheminda translates thus: “Excellent, Særiputta, excellent! .... Should there be among them any foolish people who have doubt and perplexity regarding my method of teaching, having heard this exposition, they might give up their doubts and perplexities.” (March issue, World Buddhism, page 225, middle column, and July issue, World Buddhism, page 339, middle column)

            The P. T. S. translates thus: “Well said, Særiputta! ..... Whatsoever silly fellows have any doubt or perplexity about the Tathægata, when they hear my method of Norm–teaching, all such doubt and perplexity shall be abandoned.” (The Book of Kindred Sayings, V, page 140, XLVIII, III, ii, Nælanda).

            “Wherefore thou, Særiputta ... Whatever foolish ones there be who feel doubt and hesitation concerning the Tathægata, when they have heard such discourse, even they too will banish their hesitation and their doubt.” (Dialogues of the Buddha, Part III, The Faith That Satisfied, page 109)

            The readers will now see the Ven. Kheminda’s erroneous translation of the word tathægata, as ‘method of teaching’.

            (9) SSC (II, 496) Ekodidhutta ti etena upacærajjhanavaho pubbabhægiyo samædhø vutto. Samahita ti etena upacærasamædhi. ekaggacitta ti etena subhavito vasippatto appanasamædhi vutto ti veditabbo.

            (10) D. C. (II, 394) Dve’yeva appanakammatthanani sesani upacærakamma¥¥hanæni.

            (11) D. (II, 231) Indha bhikkhave bhikkhu kæye kavanupassi viharati atapi sampajæno satima vineyya loke abbijjhadomanassam. Vedanæsu vedanænupassi ... Citte cittanupassi ... Dhammesu dhammanupassi ...

            (12) D. (II, 238) Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu santaµ væ ajjhattaµ kamacchandaµ ‘atthi me ajjhattaµ kamacchando’ti pajænæti, asantaµ væ ajjhattaµ kamacchandaµ ‘natthi me ajjhattaµ kamacchando’ti pæjænati, yathæ ca anuppannassa kæmacchandassa uppado hoti tan-ca pajænæti, yathæ ca anuppannassa kæmacchandassa pahanaµ hoti tan–ca pajænæti, yathæ ca pahinassa kamacchandassa ayatim anupado hoti tan–ca pajænæti. Santaµ væ ajjhattaµ byæpædaµ ... thinamidhaµ ... uddhacco – kukkuccaµ .... vicikicchaµ .....

            (13) DC. (II, 349) Yasma pan’ettha abhijjaggahanena kæmacchando, domanassaggahanena byæpædo sangahaµ gacchati, tasmæ nivaranapdriyapanna–balavadhamma–dvayadassanena nivara¼a-ppahanaµ vuttaµ hoti ti veditabbam.

            (14) DC (II, 350) Abhijjiha–domanassavinayena bhavanaphalaµ vuttaµ–ti vedittibbam.

            (15) Vism (I, 2). So pan’ayaµ visuddhimaggo katthaci vipassanæmattavasse’neva desito, yath’aha: Sabbe sa³khæræ aniccæ ti, yadæ paññæya passati, atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyæ–ti, Katthaci jhænapannavasena, yath’aha: Yamhi jhænañca pañña ca, so væ nibbæna-santike–ti.

            (16) Vism C (I, 11) Vipassanæmatta vasen–eva ti avadharanena samathaµ nivatteti so hi tassa patiyogø na siladi. Mattasaddena ta visesanivattiattnena savisesaµ samædhim nivatteti, so upacærappanabedo vipassanæyænikassa desana–ti katvæ na samædhimattaµ, na hi kha¼ikasamædhim vina vipassiñæ¼a sambhavati.

            (17) M. (II, 149) “Tevijjo sama¼o gotame” ti kho vaccha byakaramano vuttavadi c’eva me assa, na ca maµ abhutena abbhacikkheyya.

            (18) MC. (IV, 44-45) Sampattim tava padatthanaµ katva vipassanaµ vaddhetva arahattaµ ganhanto bhikkhu navaµ væ ulumpadini væ nissaya mahogaµ taritva paraµ gacchanto viya na kilamati. Sukkha vipassako paññæ paki¼¼akassa³khæra, sammasitva arahattaµ ganhanto ganhanto bahuhbalena sotaµ chindiva paraµ gacchanto viya kilamati.

            (19) S. (III, 139) Tasmæt’ia tvaµ særiputta imaµ dhammapariyayaµ abhikkhanaµ bhaseyyati bhikkhunaµ bhikkhuninaµ upasakanaµ upasikanam. Yesam–pi hi særiputta moghapurisanaµ bhavissati tathægate ka³kha væ vimati va, tesam–p’imaµ dhammapariyayaµ sutvæ ya tathægate ka³kha væ evimati va, sa pahiyissati.

            SC. (III, 245) Pahiyissati–ti “særiputta–sadiso pi næma nanajavanasampanno sævako buddhænaµ cittacaraµ janitum na sakkoti, evaµ appameyya tathægata” ti cintentanaµ ya tathægate ka³kha væ vimati va, sa pahiyissati.

(Concluded)

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–III

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

            The Ven. Kheminda asserts in his Reply to Rejoinder I–III that any yogø, samathayænika or vipassanæyænika, develops samatha at the stage of Purification of Mind, and vipassanæ begins with Purification of View. His assertion is correct as far as samathayænika is concerned, whereas it is not true in the case of vipassanæyænika.

            If a yogø develops samatha at the stage of Purification of Mind, he is called samathayænika whether he has basis in samatha or not at the stage of Purification of View. Here it may be reminded that although, for the sake of brevity, the term vipassanæyænika is used sometimes vis–a–vis the term samathayænika, it is, in full, known as suddhavipassanæyænika. The prefix suddha in this term conveys the meaning that it is quite apart from samatha. So a yogø who develops samatha at the stage of Purification of Mind can, in no way, be called suddhavipassanæyænika.

            Herein, suddhavipassanæyænika yogø is, in fact, that kind of yogø who develops contemplation mentioned in the Section dealing with the Attention Given to the Elements, Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta. Why? Because in the Section dealing with Mindfullness of the Body, the Visuddhimagga states: “Herein, the three, that is to say, the sections on postures on the four kinds of full awareness (See MA, i, 253 f.) and on attention directed to elements, as they are stated (in that sutta), deal with insight ... So there are only the two, that is, the sections on breathing and on directing attention to repulsiveness, that, as stated there, deal, with concentration. (The P. of P., B. Ñæ¼amoli, Chap VIII. Para 43) (20)

            “In the Mahæ Hatthipadopama Sutta, in the Mahæ Ræhulovæda Sutta, and the Dhætu–vibha³ga, it (repulsiveness) is expounded as elements ... herein, it is an insight meditation subject that is expounded as elements.” (The P. of P., B. Ñæ¼amoli, Chap VIII, Page 263, Para 60) (21) If so, why can’t attention directed to elements, expounded as elements, be insight meditation subject? Therefore, the yogø practising this particular meditation is obviously vipassanæyænika.

            I have already pointed out that the suddhavipassanæyænika yogø does not develop samatha with a view to attaining  Purification of Mind before he begins vipassanæ contemplation. In this connection the Ven. Kheminda may question whether a suddhavipassanæyænika yogø attains Purification of View, skipping Purification of Mind, because he clings to his one–sided view that Purification of Mind is attainable only by means of jhæna.

            To such a question, I would readily answer thus: “No, a suddhavipassanæyænika yogø does not skip Purification of Mind. He attains, first of all, Purification of Mind while developing vipassanæ, and later attains, while so doing, five Purifications pertaining to wisdom such as Purification of View, one after another.”

            I shall explain how Purification of Mind is attained in the course of vipassanæ contemplation. (The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw has explained this particular point in The Progress of Insight in a suitable way for the clear understanding of the people in general, but the Ven. Kheminda fails to see Purification of Mind in its rightful place and what is worse, transfers it to the wrong place.)

            When a yogø contemplates by way of Attention Given to Elements, as mentioned in the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta, should he not begin straightaway with contemplation elements as insight meditation subject? In so doing, will he be able to attain access concentration only when he contemplates with a view to attaining samædha? Will he not be able to attain access concentration if he contemplates with a view to attaining vipassanæ? Is there any difference in the matter of contemplation for vipassanæ and that for samædhi? No, there is no difference in so far as the attainment of access concentration is concerned. That is why in the Chapter on Description of Purification of View, the Visuddhimagga stages thus:

            “But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the Chapter on the Definition of the Four Elements.” (The P. of P, B. Ñæ¼amoli, Chap. XVIII, Page 680, Para 5) (22)

            Paramatthamañjþsæ states: “By ‘Of the various ways discerning the elements’ is meant ‘of the thirteen ways discerning the elements, stated as giving attention to in brief, etc., in the manner beginning with what has characteristics of hardness is the earth element.’ (23) Herein, although in regard to the definition of the Four Elements the number of thirteen ways is shown as nineteen, the remaining six must be considered as having been included in the thirteen. That a beginner in meditation should thus begin to contemplate in brief is shown in a passage of the Sub–Commentary to Uparipa¼¼æsa, Majjhima Nikæya.

            “When the Buddha discourses on meditation he shows the way in which meditation should be begun as far as it is appropriate to the bhikkhu’s conditions and capacity. When the bhikkhu’s insight becomes more developed in due course, he discerns the dhamma completely.” (24)

            How a yogø, who contemplates the four elements in accordance with the way given in the Chapter on the definition of the Four Elements, attains access concentration is shown in the Visuddhimagga as follows:

            “Ae he makes effort in this way it is not long before concentration arises in him, which is reinforced by understanding that illuminates the classification of the elements, and which is only access and does not reach absorption because it has states with individual essences as its object.” (The P. of P., B. Ñæ¼amoli, Chap. XI, Page 385, para 44) (25)

            “Herein, it must be noted: ‘Attention Given to Elements’, ‘The Meditation Subject Consisting of Elements’ and ‘Defining of the Four Elements’ all mean the same thing.” (The P. of P., Ñæ¼amoli, Chap. XI, page 380, para 27) (26)

            As regards the access concentration mentioned in the above passage of the Visuddhimagga, Paramatthamañjþsæ explains thus: “Although access concentration comes about by way of Attention Given to Elements, in the matter of Attention Given to Elements it is contemplation that is extremely keen. Therefore, the Ven. Buddhaghosa Mahæthera writes that Attention Given to Elements is expounded by the Buddha as insight meditation subject.” (27)

            The Buddha expounds, “Attention Given to Elements” as insight meditation subject. Accordingly, to a yogø, who contemplates the elements for insight, comes about access concentration naturally. With this access concentration in view, the Visuddhimagga includes “Attention Given to Elements” in the forty samatha meditation subjects. Not that it is included therein because it is a proper samatha meditation subject. Why? Because the Buddha does not expound ‘Attention Given to Elements; merely for serenity, and also because the Visuddhimagga, in dealing with Mindfullness Occupied on the Body, states, as pointed above, that even repulsiveness, if expounded as elements, is an insight meditation subject.

            Judging by the aforesaid passages from the Visddhimagga and its Commentary, Paramatthamañjþsæ, the Ven. Kheminda should be able to understand how access concentration comes about to a vipassanæyænika yogø prior to Purification of View. When Access Concentration comes about Purification of Mind is attained, as also Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind and Purifications pertaining to wisdom such as Purification of View. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda should remember, once and for all, that Purification of Mind comes about in this manner to a suddhavipassanæyænika yogø prior to attainment of Purification of View in the course of vipassanæ contemplation.

            The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw deals with this point in The Progress of Insight. Can the Ven. Kheminda insist on saying that in The Progress of Insight Purification of Mind is not mentioned, and that Purification of View comes about, skipping Purification of Mind? Now that I have explained this point at length, with the support of authoritative texts and commentaries, the Ven. Kheminda should be able to understand what the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw writes therein.

            The above–mentioned Concentration is said to be access concentration, but it is, in fact, not proper access concentration, being not in the neighbourhood of absorption jhæna. It is access concentration only in name. Paramatthamañjþsæ states: “Access concentration is to be understood as an applied term or as being nominal. The concentration that arises at the access to absorption is access concentration and here (the Meditation Subject consisting of Elements) absorption is absent. However, being similar in characteristic to access concentration it is called by that term.” (28)

            If, as stated by Paramatthamañjþsæ, this concentration can be called access concentration nominally, how will it be called in the proper sense? Has this concentration no proper term? Not so. In the matter of every samatha concentration and vipassanæ concentration there are proper terms for common usage. The aforesaid access concentration is “Kæmævacara samædhi reaching the highest peak.” This kæmævacara samædhi is of two kinds: access and momentary. If concentration cannot be properly termed access concentration, it only remains to be called momentary concentration. This explanation is borne out by Paramatthamañjþsæ and Mþlapa¼¼æsa Sub–Commentary which state: “Insight is not possible without momentary concentration”. (29)

            As is amply testified by these Sub–Commentaries, an immense number of momentary concentrations come about in the  course of vipassanæ contemplation. Of all these momentary concentrations, the Visuddhimagga (Section on Definition of the Four Elements) calls only that momentary concentration, which overcomes, in the first instance, the hindrances, by the name of access concentration otherwise called nominal access concentration.

            This point will be further clarified by the following passages of Paramatthamañjþsæ:

            “To a samathayænika no lokuttaræ–attainment is ever possible .... without access and absorption concentration” (30) Herein, it is not meant that lokuttaræ is attained by a samathayænika as soon as access or absorption concentration comes about. It is, however, meant to say that Purification of Mind which is fundamental to lokuttaræ attainment is not possible without access or absorption. Again, Paramatthamañjþsæ states: “To a vipassanæyænika no lokuttaræ attainment is ever possible ... without momentary concentration.” (30) Herein also, it is not meant that lokuttaræ is attained  as soon as momentary concentration comes about. It is, however, meant to say that Purification of Mind which is fundamental to lokuttaræ attainment is not possible without momentary concentration. Of these two passages, the Ven. Kheminda has accepted the import of the former passage. If so, he has no alternative but to accept the import of the latter passage, which is similar in wording to the former.

            The above explanations, given unbiased and earnest consideration in quest of truth, will be found to have proved sufficiently that to a vipassanæyænika Purification of Mind comes about by means of momentary concentration in the course of vipassanæ contemplation; Purification of Mind is attained before Purification of View; and samatha development is not necessary for Purification of Mind before vipassanæ contemplation.

            To put in another way, momentary concentration, being in the neighbourhood of magga–phala samædhi, can surely be termed proper access concentration. I shall explain. In the matter of samatha development there are two kinds of access concentration: (1) that of the same adverting. (ekavajjana-upacæra), (2) that of a different adverting (nanavajjana–upacæra.) “Access concentration is the unification of mind that precedes absorption concentration.” (31) (The Path of Purification, Bhikkhu Ñæ¼amoli, Chap. III, Page 84, 6–2)

            “The phrase ‘unification of mind that precedes’ states the inclusion of access concentration of a different adverting conducive to absorption concentration, but not access concentration of the same adverting only.” (32) “Herein, the unification of mind in the case of ten meditation subjects and in the consciousness preceding absorption (in the case of the remaining meditation subjects) is access concentration.” (33) (The P. of P, B. Ñæ¼amoli, Chap. XI, Page 406, 119). The unification of mind is that unification of mind in the process of thought (vøthi) having the same adverting as well as in the process of thought having a different adverting.” (34)

            In accordance with the above passages of the Visuddhimagga and its Commentary, Paramatt-hamañjþsæ, the unification of mind that goes by the name of access concentration in the jhænic process of thought having the same adverting with the absorption in the same process, and being in the neighbourhood of absorption is called access concentration having the same adverting. If the unification of mind named access concentration is in a different process of thought prior to jhænic process, the access and absorption concentrations are obviously not in the same process and not having same adverting. So, in this case, access concentration is termed access concentration having a different adverting.

            The unification of mind named access concentration having a different adverting, although not in the immediate neighbourhood of absorption, is considered to be in the neighbourhood of absorption because it is conducive to absorption. Therefore, Paramatthamañjþsæ states thus: “The access concentration having a different adverting conducive to absorption.” (35) ‘Conducive to absorption’ means ‘the overcoming of hindrances.’ When the hindrances are overcome the yogø reaches the neighbourhood of absorption. So, the unification of mind having a different adverting, being conducive to absorption by overcoming the hindrances, is called the access concentration having a different adverting from the moment of overcoming the hindrances. That is why Parama-tthamañjþsæ states: “The hindrances, being diametrically opposed to the constituent parts of jhæna, must be overcome, together with immoralities which are associated with them. Thereby, this yogø bhikkhu should have attained access-jhæna, having as the object the characteristics of elements.” (36)

NOTES

            20. Vism. (I, 232) Tattha yasma iriyapatha pabbaµ catusampajaññapabbaµ dhætumana–sikærapabban’ti imani tini vipassanævasena vuttani .... Ænæpanapabbaµ pana patikkulamana- sikærapabbana–ca iman’ ev’ettha dve samædhivasena vuttani.

            21. Vism. (I, 235) Mahahatthipadopama–maharahulovadadhætuvibha³gesu dhætuvasena kachitaµ ....Tattha bhatuvasena katthitaµ vipassanækamma¥¥hænaµ hoti.

            22. Vism. (II, 222) Suddhavipassanayæniko pana ayam’eva væ samathayænika catudhætuvava-tthane vuttanaµ tesaµ tesaµ dhætupariggahamukhanaµ annataramukhavesena sa³khepato væ vittharato væ catasso dhætuya parigganhati.

            23. Vism C. (II, 353). Tesaµ tesaµ dhætupariggahamukhan’ti yaµ thaddhalakkha¼aµ ayaµ pathavidhatu’ti–adina sa³khepamanasikæraradivasena vuttesu terasasu dhætupariggaha. mukhesu.

            24. MSC. (III, 255) Bhægavæ hi kamma¥¥hænaµ kathento kamma¥¥hænikassa bhikkhuno karanabalanurþpam’ eva pathamaµ bhavanabhinivesaµ dasseti. So paccha nane vipulaµ (vepullam?) gacchante anavasesato dhanumaµ ganhati.

            25. Vism, (I, 347) Tass’evaµ vayamananassa niciren’eva dhætuppabhedavabhasana–pannapariggahito subhavadhammarammanatta appanaµ appatto upacæramatto samædhi uppajjati.

            26. Vism. (I. 342) Dhætumanasikæro, dhætukamma¥¥hanam, catudhætuvavatthana, ti atthato akam.

            27. Vism C. (I,298) Dhætumanansikæra–kamma¥¥hænena yadi-pi upacærasamædhi ijjhati, sammassanacaro panatattha satisayo’ti dhætumanasikærapabbam–pi ‘vipassanævasena vuttan’ti vuttaµ.

            28. Vism C. (I, 436) Upacærasamædhi’ti ca fulhivasena veditabbam. Appanaµ hi upecca cari samædhi upacærasamædhi; appana c’ettha natthi. Tadisassa pana samædhissa samanalakkha¼ataya evaµ vuttaµ.

            29. Vism C. (I, 11) MSC, (L, 204) Na hi kha¼ikasamædhim vinæ vipassanæ sambhæbvati.

            30. Vism C. (I, 15). Samathayænikassa hi upacærappanappabhedaµ samædhim, itarassa kha¼ikasamædhim, ubhayesam–pi vimokkha–mukkhattayam, ubhayesam–pi vimokkha–mukhatta-yaµ vina na kadaci–pi lokuttaræ dhigmo sambbayati.

            31. Vism. (I. 82) Ya can appanasamadhinaµ pubbabhage ekaggata, ayaµ upacæra–samædhi.

            32. Vism C. (I, 110) Pubbabhage ekaggata–ti iminæ appanaya upakaraka–nanavajjanupa-carassa–pi sangaho datthabbo.

            33. Vism C. (I, 368) Dasasu kamma¥¥hanesu, appanapubhabhagacittesu ca ekaggata upacærasamædhi.

            34. Vism C. (I, 459) Ekaggata–ti ekavajjanavithiyam, manavajjanavithiyan–ca ekaggata.

            35. see Note 32.

            36. Vism C. (I 435) Tesaµ ujuvipaccanikataya nivara¼ani vikkambhitani” yeya honti sadddhim tadekatthehi papadhammehi, Ettavata ca’nena upacærajjhanaµ samædhigataµ hoti dhætulakkha¼arammanam.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–IV

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

            As in the case of samatha, so in the case of vipassanæ, the unification of mind (one pointed-ness of mind) in the neighbourhood of magga–phala is access concentration. However, as the predominant feature of vipassanæ is knowledge–insight, only that knowledge–insight is described in Pæ¹i Texts and Commentaries such as Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind, Knowledge by Discerning Conditionally, etc. As concentration is not predominant in vipassanæ, it is not described. If it were described, it should have been pointed out that, as in the case of samatha, access concentration comes about from the moment of overcoming of hindrances.

            The access concentration, being in the same magga process of thought with magga-phala, is termed concentration having the same adverting. The unification of mind named access concentration, being in a different process of thought prior to magga process, is termed access concentration having a different adverting. With (the preliminary part of) this access concentration having a different adverting in view, I have pointed out above that access concentration explained in the Visuddhimagga, section dealing with Definition of the Four Elements, can surely be termed proper access concentration. After the attainment of Purification of Mind by (the preliminary part of) access concentration having a different adverting, the five purifications pertaining to wisdom are attained one after another.

            If such is the case, it may be asked as to why the access concentration having a different adverting, being not in the neighbourhood of magga–phala, could be termed proper access concentration. In the case of samatha, the access concentration having a different adverting, being conducive to absorption from the moment of overcoming of hindrances (notwithstanding the lapse of a number of days between access and absorption) is considered as being in the neighbourhood of absorption. In the same manner, in the case of vipassanæ the access concentration having a different adverting, being conducive to magga phala from the moment of Purification of Mind by overcoming hindrances (notwithstanding the four purifications  between access concentration and magga–phala) is considered as being in the neighbourhood of magga–phala.

           That, as in the case of samatha, jhæna can as well be attained a number of days after the attainment of access concentration, is indicated in the Visuddhimagga, which in explaining that the counterpart–sign is guarded by means of seven days, states: “If a monastery has many abodes he can try that one by one, living in each for three days, and stay on where his mind becomes unified.” (The P. of P., B. Ñæ¼amoli, Chapter IV, page 113, 36) (37)

            Not knowing anything about the access concentration having a different adverting, the Ven. Kheminda has alleged that “the author admits that momentary concentration is in the neighbourhood of the path”. Then he observed: “But one does not go to the neighbourhood of the path to attain Purification of Mind!”

            If only the Ven. Kheminda can manage to comprehend what I have explained above, he should be able to understand that when the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw writes, in The Progress of Insight: “Since it (access concentration) is in the neighbourhood or the Noble–path–attainment–concentration,” the author refers to the (preliminary part of) access concentration having a different adverting and not to the access concentration having the same adverting. If the Ven. Kheminda understands so, he should also understand that the Purification of Mind attained by means of the said access concentration having a different adverting, termed proper access concentration, comes about not in the immediate neighbourhood of ariya–magga but before Purification of View.

            As explained above, just as Purification of Mind is attained by means of access concentration capable of overcoming the hindrances in the course of contemplation of elements in accordance with Attention Given to Elements, so also Purification of Mind is attained by means of access concentration in the course of vipassanæ contemplation in accordance with the Postures of the Body, Mindfullness with Clear Comprehension, Feeling, Mind and Mind–States. Why? Because in the Commentary to the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta the above–mentioned contemplations are described together with Attention Given to Elements as access meditation-subjects.

            In my answer to No 2 (b), paras 9-14, I have pointed out that momentary, access and fixed concentration can be developed in the course of contemplation of the Four Foundations of Mindfullness as stated in the Sæla Sutta, AmbaPæ¹i, Vagga, Satipa¥¥hæna Saµyutta, as well as in its Commentary and Sub-Commentary. Judging by that too, it is quite evident that momentary concentration, access concentration, as also Purification of Mind, is attained in the course of vipassanæ contemplation.

            Now that I have explained, quoting most reliable passages from Pæ¹i Texts, Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries, the Ven. Kheminda should be able to understand that samatha is not developed separately by a vipassanæyænika to attain Purification of Mind, and that Purification of Mind is attained by means of momentary concentration overcoming the hindrances, (the momentary concentration which is termed nominal access concentration according to Paramatthamañjþsæ, and which is termed proper access concentration according to the method of defining access concentration having a different adverting.) Nevertheless, I propose to cite more passages from Pæ¹i Texts, commentaries and Sub-Commentaries, which the Ven. Kheminda should ponder carefully so that he would be able to comprehend the verity of the aforesaid statement, as also to know that momentary concentration is called basic concentration as well.

            “However, the bhikkhu possessed the potentiality for the attainment of Arahantship, and so he (the Blessed One) advised him once again, saying ‘Therefore, bhikkhu, you should train thus: “My mind shall be steadied, quite steadied, internally and arisen evil unprofitable things shall not obsess my mind and remain. You should train thus.’ (A iv 299). ‘But what is stated in that advice is basic concentration consisting in mere unification of mind infernally in the sense of in oneself.’ (The P. of P., B. Ña¼amoli, Chap. IX, para 114, page 349) (38)

            Paramatthamañjþsæ states: ‘Internally’ means at gosarajjhatta! The sense of ‘Internally’ is ‘At the object of meditation’... ‘My mind shall be steadied’ means ‘mind shall not wander, remains fixed at an object’. Therefore it is quite steadied. ‘Quite steadied’ means ‘mind shall be well placed.’ ‘Arisen’ means ‘not overcome yet.’ ‘Evil’ means ‘low’. ‘Unprofitable things’ means ‘unprofitable things such as sense-desire, in the sense that they arise from ignorance”. ‘Mere unification of mind’ means ‘concentration attained but not well developed yet by the yogø’. That mere unification of mind is called basic concentration because it is the basis of the distinctive concentrations. That will be dealt with later. That mere unification of mind is regarded as momentary concentration as in the passage: ‘I subjectively steadied the mind, I calmed it, I made it one-pointed, I concentrated’, In certain discourses, after saying, ‘Monks, I was full of energy. I was resolute. My mind was well placed and collected, (The Blessed One) went on, beginning with the words aloof from sense-desires.’ For this reason, just as one-pointedness of mind mentioned at the very beginning is regarded as momentary concentration, so also it should be regarded as such in the discourse. (Paramatthamañjþsæ, 387). (39)

            A careful consideration of the above mentioned passages of the Sa³khitta Sutta, Bhþmicæla Vagga, A¥¥haka Nipæta, A³guttara Nikæya and its Commentary, Visuddhimagga and Paramattha-mañjþsæ, will elicit the fact that momentary concentration, otherwise known as basic concentration, is capable of overcoming the hindrances such as sensual desire.

            The Ven. Kheminda’s assertion that “momentary concentration emerged after jhæna-attainment during the time of actual insight practice done by who has risen from jhæna” is diametrically opposite to what is stated in Paramatthamañjþsæ.” “Mere unification of mind’ means concentration attained but not well developed yet by the yogø. That mere unification of mind is called basic concentration because it is the basis of distinctive concentrations that will be dealt with later. That basic concentration ...... is regarded as momentary concentration.” (40)

            I do not know whether the Ven. Kheminda strives or not to attain jhæna, but his articles disclose his desire to do vipassanæ contemplation only after jhæna-attainment. Therefore, it appears that he pays no attention to Pæ¹i Texts, Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries which state that yogøs, established in virtue, although bereft of jhæna, can overcome the hindrances in the course of vipassanæ contemplation and attain magga-phala-ñæ¼a, and also that he, for this very reason misunderstands and misinterprets them. I would now cite for his consideration some more discourses of the Buddha and the Commentaries thereof, which clearly state that, without jhæna attainment, yogøs can overcome the hindrances by vipassanæ contemplation.

            “And again, monks, when a monk is walking, he comprehends, ‘I am walking’; or when he is standing still, he comprehends, ‘I am standing still’; and when he is sitting down, he comprehends, ‘I am sitting down’ or when he is lying down, he comprehends, ‘I am lying down’ so that however his body is disposed, he comprehends he is like that. While he is thus diligent, ardent, self-resolute, those memories and aspirations that are worldly are got rid of; by getting rid of them the mind itself is inwardly settled, calmed, focussed, concentrated. Thus too, monks, does a monk develop mindfullness of the body.” (41) (The Middle Length Sayings, III, 90-91, page 130).

            In the Commentary to this Sutta, ‘that are worldly’ means ‘that are associated with five sensual pleasures.’ ‘Memories and Aspirations’ means ‘wandering thoughts’. Because they are wont to wander they are termed ‘sara’, ‘Saranti, means to wander’. ‘Inwardly’ means ‘At the object of meditation’. ‘Concentrated’ means ‘to be well placed’, ‘as if fixed meditation is attained’. (42)

Notes

            (37) Vism. (I. 124). Yasmin vihare bahu avasa honti, tattha ekamekasmin tini tini divasani vasitva yatth’assa cittaµ ekaggan hoti, tattha vasitabbam.

            (38) Vism, (I, 316) Yasma so arahattassa upanissayasampanno, tasmæ naµ avadanto aha: “Tasmæt’iha te bhikkhu evaµ sikkhitabbam: ‘ajjhattaµ me cittaµ thitaµ bhavissati susamthitaµ, na c’uppanna papaka akusala dhamma cittaµ pariyadaya thassanti’ ti. Evaµ-hi te bhikkhu sikkhitabban” ti. (A. III, 121) imina pan’assa ovadena niyakajjhatavasena cittekaggatamatto mudasamædhi vutto. (see also A.C. III, 241-2)

            39, Vism C. (I, 386-7) Ajjhattan-ti gocarajjhatte, kamma¥¥hænarammane-ti attho ... Cittaµ thitaµ bhavissati-ti bahiddha avikkhippamanaµ ekggabhave thitaµ bhavissati. Tato eva susanthitaµ, sutthu samahitan’ti attho. Uppanna-ti avikkhambhita. Papaka-ti lamaka-Akusala dhamma-ti kæmacchandadayo akosallasambhutathena akusala dhamma... Cittekaggatamatto-ti bhavanam’ anuyuttena patiladdhamattaµ natisubhavtiaµ samædhanam. Taµ pana upari vuccanananaµ samædhivisesanaµ mulakarana bhavato ‘mulasamædhi’ ti vutto. Sv’sayaµ citte-kaggatamatto “Ajjhattaµ’eva cittaµ santhapemi sannisademi ekodim karomi samædhumi” ti (M% I, 163)-adisu viya kha¼ikasamædhi adhippeto, Yath’eva hi annatthu’pi “Aruddhum kho pana me bhikkhave viriyaµ ahosi asallinaµ ... Samahitaµ cittaµ ekaggan’ti vatva “Vivicc’eva kamehi” ti. (M% I, 26-164, A III, 22)--adiva-canato pathamaµ vuttacittekaggata ‘kha¼ika samædhi’ti vinnayati, Evaµ ‘idho’ pi.

            40. See note 39.

            41. M (III, 132) Puna ca’paraµ bhikkhave bhikkhu gacchanto væ “gacchamø” ti pajænæti. Thito væ “thito ‘mhi’ ti pajænæti Nisinno væ “nisinno’mhi” ti pajænæti. Sayano væ “sayano ‘mhi” ti pajænæti. Yathæ yathæ væ pan-assu kæyo panihito hoti’ tatha naµ pajænæti. Tassa evaµ appamattassa atapino pahitattassa viharato ye te gehasita sarasa³kappa, te pahiyanti. Tesaµ pahana ajjhattam’eva santitthati sannisidati ekodi hoti samædhiyati. Evam–pi bhikkhave bhikkhu kæyagatasatim bhaveti.

            42. MC. (IV, 102) Gehasita–ti pañcakæmagunanissita. Sarasa³kappa–ti dhavanasa³kappa, saranti–ti hi sara, dhavanti’ti attho. Ajjhattaµ, eva–ti gacarajjhattasmim’yeva. (Ibid 101) Samædhi-yati–ti samma thapiyati appuna, pattaµ viya hoti.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–V

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðta

(Myanmar)

            In the Putta Sutta, Macala Vagga, Catukka Nipæta, A³guttara Nikæya, a suddha–vipassanæyæ-nika arahant or a sukkhavipassaka arahant is compared to a pundarika lotus, whose petals do not come up to a hundred. “And how, monks, is a person a blue lotus recluse? Herein a monk, by destroying the æsavas, has reached the heart’s release, the release by wisdom that is free from æsavas, and having realised it abides therein. Yet he does not abide experiencing with his own person the eight deliverances. “Thus, monks, is a person a blue–lotus recluse.” (43) (VII (87) Kinds of Recluses (a), page 96&97, The Book of Gradual Sayings II, PTS)

            (Note: Pundarika is a white lotus, not blue lotus. See D III 2, 223, Dialogues of the Buddha, Part III, 224)

            Its Commentary explains thus “Sama¼a pu¼ðarika’ means ‘a sama¼a comparable to a pu¼ðarika lotus’; ‘a pu¼ðarika lotus’ means ‘a lotus with less than a hundred petals.’ Sama¼a–pu¼ðarika’ means ‘sukkha–vipassaka arahant; such an arahant, bereft of jhæna and abhiññæ (jhanabhiññænaµ abhævena), is not complete in qualities and is, therefore, termed sama¼a–pu¼ðarika. (44)

            Here ‘Jhænabhiññænam’ should not be construed as “jhænena nibbata jhanassa væ abhiññæ jhænabbiññæ” in the form of tappurisa compound. Because, if it is so construed, ‘jhænabhiññæ’ will mean only abhiññæ and not jhæna, contradicting thereby the a¥¥ha vimokkha (eight deliverances) mentioned in the Putta Sutta.

            I Shall explain further. In this Sutta, the Buddha expounded specifically the eight Samæpatti or eight deliverances. He made no reference to abhiññæ. However, the Commentator couples lokiya abhiññæ with jhæna for the reason that when jhæna is stated, by it is also meant its by–product lokiya abhiññæ. Nevertheless jhæna is the predominant factor. So, to be in keeping with the textual word: “a¥¥ha vimokkha’, ‘jhænabiññæ’ must be construed as ‘jhænæni ca abhiññæyo ca jhænabhiññæyo’ in the form of dvanda compound. Again, it should be noted that in this Commentary, jhæna does not mean lokuttaræ jhæna. Just as jhæna means lokiya jhæna, so also abhiññæ means lokiya abhiññæ. Because this Commentarial explanation refers to the qualities of the arahant it does not permit of any consideration whether it includes lokuttaræ abhiññæ.

            In the above Commentary, judging by the phrases ‘bereft of jhæna and abhiññæ’ and ‘not complete in qualities’, it is clear that sukkhavipassaka arahant is not a jhæna–attainer. If he is not a jhæna–attainer, it is undeniable that he attains Purification of Mind not by means of absorption concentration (jhænasamædhi), but by means of momentary concentration in the course of vipassanæ contemplation. That being so, is there any necessity to develop jhæna at the stage of Purification of Mind? Certainly not. With all that, if anybody interprets ‘bereft of jhæna–abhiññæ’ as meaning ‘vipassanæ contemplation is done without jhæna as basis, in spite of jhæna–attainment’ he is running counter to the Buddha’s teachings as well as the Commentaries thereof.

            Samædhi Sutta II, Asura Vagga, Catuka Nipæta, A³guttara Nikæya, also bears a striking testimony to the existence of suddhavipassanæyænika. “Herein, monks, a certain person is one who gains (læbhi) mental calm of the self, but does not gain (na læbhi) the higher wisdom of insight into things.

            “Herein, again, monks, a certain person is one who gains (læbhi) the higher wisdom of insight into things, but does not gain (na læbhø) mental calm of the self .....” Then, monks, he who has gained the higher wisdom of insight into things, but not mental calm in himself should make an effort to establish the one and attain the other. Then at some future time he is one who has gained both.” (45) (ii (92) Concentration (a) and iii 93 Concentration (b) pages 101–102. The Book of Gradual Sayings, II, PTS)

            It must be pointed out that the English translation of the last paragraph is not correct, because the Pæ¹i Text means ....“Then monks, he who has gained the higher wisdom of insight into things, but not mental calm in himself, should, established in higher wisdom of insight, make effort to attain mental calm.” The same translator (F. L. Woodward) translated ‘pati¥¥hæya’ in this wise in Bæhiya Sutta: “Indeed, Bæhiya, when you, established in virtue, shall have thus cultivated the four stations of mindfullness ....” (The Book of Kindred Sayings V, Book III. Chapter II (V), page 145, P. T.S) This translation agrees with Pæ¹i Text.

            The Commentary to the Samædhi Sutta II explains thus: ‘Mental calm in himself’ means ‘mental calm associated with appanæcitta.” The higher wisdom of insight into things (sa³khæra)’ means ‘vipassanañæ¼a penetrating into sañkhæra.’ It is higher wisdom that gains an insight into sa³khæra or five khandhæs. It is, therefore, termed higher wisdom capable of penetrating into sa³khæra. (46)

            In this Sutta, the words læbhø and na læbhø refer respectively to the attainment or otherwise of jhænasamædhi and vipassanæ. They do not refer to the attainment or otherwise of pædaka jhæna. This point should be carefully noted.

            That sukkha–vipassaka is not jhæna–attainer, the Uparipa¼¼æsa Commentary states thus: If the extent of samæpattilæbhø adhimænikæ (one who has undue confidence in himself as an arahant possessed of samæpatti) is stated, it covers that of a sukkhavipassaka adhimænika (dry insight worker who thinks he is an arahant). If the extent of an arahant possessed of samæpatti is stated, it covers that of a sukkhavipassaka arahant. (47) (majjhima Commentary, IV, 36)

            In this Commentary, pairing of samæpattilæbi adhimænika and sukkha-vipassaka adhimænika, and pairing of samæpattilæbhø arahant and sukkha–vipassaka arahant point up the fact that sukkha–vipassaka is not a jhæna–attainer. If sukkha–vipassaka were a jhæna–attainer, pairing should not have been done in this manner.

            The attention of the Ven. Kheminda may be invited to the Susima Paribbæjaka Sutta, Mahævagga, Nidænavagga Saµyutta, wherein the Blessed One most explicitly stated that sukkha–vipassaka arahant does not attain jhæna. Paribbæjaka Susima joined the Order of the Brethren to learn the Buddha’s teachings so that he and his company could preach them for the sake of worldly benefits.

            One day he asked the monks who had attained arahantship whether they attained five lokiya abhiññæ and arþpajhæna. The Arahants replied that they had been freed by insight. Susima said: “I do not know fully the matter stated concisely by the venerable ones.” The Arahants said: “Whether you know it or not, we have been freed by insight.”

            Not being satisfied with their answer, he approached and told all to the Buddha. The Buddha explained the matter thus: “Whether you come to know it, Susima, or whether you do not, first comes knowledge of the law of cause (and effect) ....(dhammathitiñæ¼a). ....and afterwards comes knowledge about Nibbæna. Now what think you, Susima? Is the body permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Lord ... Old age and dying are conditioned by birth. Susima, seest thou this? Even so, Lord .... When ignorance ceases, activities cease. Susima, seest thou this? Even so, Lord. Then, surely thou, Susima, thus knowing, thus seeing, dost enjoy diverse mystic powers? Not so, Lord”. (48) (See Kindred sayings, II 88–89 PTS).

            Considering the circumstances in which Susima became a monk, what Susima said in reply to the Buddha’s questions, and while doing so he attained arahantship in the very presence of the Buddha, the Ven. Kheminda should be able to understand that Susima was not a jhæna–attainer and realised the truth in the presence of the Buddha. It is quite clear, then, that the Ven. Kheminda’s assertion that suddha–vipassanæyænika attained Purification of Mind by means of jhæna is wrong. Again, considering the Arahants’ reply: “We have been freed by insight”, it is quite clear that Ven. Kheminda’s view is wrong. That he is wrong will be more clear by judging the following Commentary.

            “We have been freed by insight” means “We have not attained jhæna, so we sukkhavipassaka have been freed by insight.”

            “Dhammathitiñæ¼a” means ‘vipassanæñæ¼a’. That vipassanæñæ¼a comes first. ‘Knowledge about Nibbæna’ means ‘maggañæ¼a that comes about at the conclusion of vipassanæ contemplation’. That maggañæ¼a comes afterwards. So the Buddha said thus.

            “Why did the Buddha say the word beginning with Whether you come to know it’? He said so to show that ñæ¼a can come about thus without jhæna–samædhi as well. What the Buddha meant was this: “Susima, magga and phala are not the effects of samædhi, not the fruition of samædhi, not the consummation of samædhi; magga and phala are the effects of vipassanæ, the fruition of vipassanæ, the consummation of vipassanæ. So, whether you come to know it or whether you do not, vipassanæñæ¼a comes first and knowledge about Nibbæna comes afterwards.”

            “Now, knowing the potentiality of Susima, the Buddha discoursed on the three characteristics of life, beginning with, What think you Susima, is body permanent or impermanent? At the end of the discourse, Susima attained arahantship. The Buddha, then, desiring to examine Susima, put questions to him, such as ‘Old age and death are conditioned by birth. Susima, seest thou this?” Why did the Buddha ask Susima questions such as, ‘Dost thou enjoy (mystic powers)?’ Because the Buddha wanted to emphasise the fact of sukkhavipassaka arahant, bereft of jhæna. It conveys the sense ‘You are not the only sukkhavipassaka who is bereft of jhæna. So too are those monks.” (49)

            In this Sutta, it is clearly shown that Susima as well as the arahants who answered his questions did not attain five lokiya abhiññas and arþpa jhænas. From this, it should not be construed that they attained rþpa jhænas. Lokiya abhiññas are the by–product of rþpa jhænas. When it is stated that lokiya abhiññæs are not attained, by this is also meant that rþpa jhænas are not attained. As a matter of fact, because Susima did not put a direct question to the arahants whether they attained rþpa jhænas, no direct reference is made in this Sutta to rþpa jhænas. Even if he had done so, the arahants had no alternative but to answer thus: “We have been freed by insight.”

            That is why, in the Commentary to this Sutta, the sentence: “We have been freed by insight” goes to show that the arahants were nijjhænaka (having no jhæna) sukkhavipassaka. Here, the word nijjhænaka should be defined thus: Natthi jhæna³ etesan-ti nijjhæna, eva nijjhænaka! This qualifying word nijjhænaka is not a byavacchedaka epithet that excludes the irrelevant sense of the word qualified, but bhutakathana epithet that confirms the meaning of sukkhavipassaka which it qualifies. Therefore, nijjhænaka should not be construed to be of the same sense with nijjhænaµ of the phrase nijjhænaµ khamanti in the Alagaddþpama Sutta. It is not found in any Pæ¹i Text, Commentary, and Sub–Commentary that nijjhænaka bears the same meaning as nijjhænam.

            Judging by the above–mentioned Commentarial statement: ‘the Buddha said so to show that ñæ¼a can come about thus without jhæna–samædhi as well,’ it is clear that this word nijjhænaka is to be understood as meaning ‘having no jhæna.’

            The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the following explanation of ‘without jhæna–samædhi as well’ in Paramattha–pakæsinø. ‘Without jhæna–samædhi as well’ means ‘bereft of samædhi as well, developed previously (purima–siddham), reaching up to samatha–lakkha¼æ. This is said in reference to vipassanæyænika.” (50)

            Judging by this Sub–Commentary, it is also clear that vipassanæ–ñæ¼a is possible without jhæna–samædhi developed previously, reaching up to Samædhi–lakkha¼æ, and so nijjhænaka must be interpreted as ‘having no jhæna’. That is why the Sub–Commentator points out that ‘Without jhæna–samædhi as well’ is said in reference to vipassanæyænika (sukkhavipassaka).

            The Commentary and Sub–Commentary most clearly point out that sukkhavipassaka or suddhavipassanæyænika individuals do not attain jhæna. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda’s assertion that vipassanæyænika, having attained Purification of Mind by means of jhæna, begins vipassanæ contemplation to attain Purification of View etc is opposed to the Commentary and the Sub–Commentary.

NOTES

            43. A. (I, 399). Kathañ–ca bhikkhave puggalo samanapundariko hoti? Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu æsavænaµ khaya anæsavaµ cetovimuttim paññævimuttim di¥¥h’eva dhamme sayaµ abhiññæ sacchikatvæ upasaµ pajja viharæti, no ca kho attha fimokkhe kæyena phusitvæ viharati. Evaµ kho bhikkhave puggalo samanapundariko hoti.

            44. AC. (II, 322) Sama¼opandariko–ti pundarikasadiso sama¼o, Pundarikaµ name unasatapattaµ sararoham, Ihina sukkhariva–passakakhinasavaµ dasseti, so hi jhænabhinñænaµ abhavena aparipunnagunatta sama¼apundariko næma hoti.

            45. A. (I. 405) Idha pana bhikkhave ca kacco puggalo lobi adhipannadhamma–vipassanæya, na læbhø ajjhattan cetosamathassa .... Tara bhikkhave yv’ayaµ puggalo læbhø abhi abhipanadhamma–vipassanæya na læbhø ajjhattaµ cetosamathassa, tena bhikkhave puggalena adhipannadhamma–vipassanæya pattithaya ajjhattaµ cetosamathe yogo karaniyo. Sa aparena samayena labhi e’eva hoti abhipanadhamma–vipassanæya, læbhø ca ajjhattaµ cetosamathassa.

            46. AC. (II, 325) Ajjhattaµ cetosamathassa–ti niyakajjhatte appanacittassmadhssa. Adhipannadhamma–vipassanæya–ti. sa³khæriggahakavipassananassa. Tan–hi adhipannasa³khatan–ca pancrikkhandhssa³khatesu ca dhammesu vipassanæbhþtaµ, tasmæ adhipannadhamma–vipassan’ti vuccati.

            47. MC. (IV, 36) samapattilabhino hi adhimanikassa nighamse kathite sukkhavipassakassa–pi adhimanikassa kathito’va hoti. Samapattilæbhino ca khinasavassa kathite sukkhavipassakasso kathiti’va hoti.

            48. S. (I, 344) Ajaneyyasi væ tvaµ susima na væ tvaµ ajaneyyasi, atha kho dammatthitiñæ¼aµ pubba paccha nibbæne ñæ¼am. Taµ kim mannasi susima rþpaµ niccaµ væ aniccaµ va–ti? Aniccaµ bhante. ... “Jætipaccaya jaramaranan” ti susma passasøti? Evaµ bhante ... “Avijjaniaodho–ti susima rþpaµ niccaµ væ aniccaµ va–ti? Aniccaµ bhante. ... “Jætipaccaya jaræmara³aµ” ti susima passasøti? Evaµ bhante... “Avijjaniaodhi–ti susima passatøti? Evaµ bhante. Apipana tvaµ susima evaµ jananto evaµ passanto anekavihitaµ iddhividhaµ paccanubhosi...? No hemaµ bhante.

            49. SC. (II. 117) paññævimutta kho mayaµ ævuso–ti ævuso mayaµ nijjhanaka sukkhovi-passaka paññæmatte’eva vimutto’ti desseti... ...Dhammatthitiñæ¼an–ti vipassanænam, taµ pathama-tarrn uppajjati. Nibbene ñæ¼an–ti vipassanoya cinnante pavattamaggañæ¼am, taµ paccha uppajjati. Tasmæ bhægava evam’aha.

            Ajaneyyasi va–ti–adi kasma vittaµ? vittaµ? Vina–pi samædhim evaµ nanuppatti–dassanattham. Idaµ hi vuttaµ hoti: “susima maggo væ phalaµ væ na samædinissando, na samædhi–anisamso, na samædhissa nipphatti vipassanæya pan ‘eso nissando, vipassanæya anisamso, vipassanæya nipphatti. Tasmæ janeyyasi væ tvam, na væ tvaµ janeyyasi atha kho dkammatthiñæ¼aµ pubbe pacca nibbæne ñæ¼an’ti.

            Idani–ssa pativedhabhabbataµ natva teparivattaµ dhamma–desanaµ desento “Taµ kim mannasi susima rþpaµ niccaµ væ aniccaµ va” ti–adim’ana. Teparivatta–desanavasane pan thero arahattaµ patto. Idani’ssa anuyagaµ aropento “Jætipaccaya jaramaranan–ti susima passasi” ti–adim’ aha. “Api pana tvaµ susima” ti idaµ kasma arabhi? Nijjhanakonaµ sukkha–vipassakabhikkhunaµ pakatakaranatham. Ayamh ettha adhippayona kevalaµ tvam’eva nijjhanako sukkhvipassako, ete–pi bhikkhu evarvpa’yeve–ti.

            50. SSC. (II, 124) Vina–pi samathalakkha¼appattaµ purimasiddhaµ vina–pi samædhin’ti vipassanæyænikaµ sandhana vuttaµ.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–VI

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

            Judging also by this fact that many a person attained maggaphalañæ¼a while listening to the discourses of the Buddha, it is undeniable that Purification of Mind can come about to one without having attained jhæna. It is not to be doubted that while those persons were reflecting on what they heard, the hindrances were overcome. Purification of Mind attained, vipassanañæ¼a arose in the progressive order, culminating in the realisation of magga–phalañæ¼a. This fact is borne out by Pæ¹i Texts, some of which will be shown below.

            UPæ¹i Sutta, Majjhima Pa¼¼æsa, Majjhima Nikæya, shows how UPæ¹i realised the truth. “Then the Blessed One discoursed to him  (UPæ¹i) a graduated sermon ... When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of UPæ¹i, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas, viz: Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and the Path. Just as a clean cloth, free from stain, would take the dye perfectly, even so, to UPæ¹i, the householder, whilst seated in that place, there arose the spotless, the stainless vision of Truth. He knew: “Whatsoever has causally arisen must inevitably pass utterly away.” (51) (The Wheel, Nos. 98–99 B. P. S. Translated by Nærada Thera and Mahinda Thera).

            In the Commentary to this Sutta, it is explained thus: ‘Vision of Truth’ means  ‘Three maggas (Sotæpatti magga, Sakadægæmi magga and Anægæmi magga)’ in the forthcoming Brahmæyu Sutta and ‘æsavakkhayañæ¼a (arahatta magga)’ in Cþ¹a Ræhulovæda Sutta, whereas it means ‘sotæpatti magga’ in this UPæ¹i Sutta. (52)

            This Sutta and its Commentary show vividly that UPæ¹i overcame the hindrances and attained Sotæpattimagga while listening to the Buddha’s sermon. considering the overcoming of the hindrances and the attainment of Purification of Mind at the beginning, and the attainment of Sotæpattimagga at the end, it should be understood by the method of migapadava¹añjana (the foot-prints of deer) that vipassanañæ¼a such as næma–rþpa–paricchedañæ¼a arose in the mind progressively. Judging also by the fact that UPæ¹i was a close disciple and supporter of Nigantha, and that he came to the Buddha for a wordy battle and realised the truth on the spot, his overcoming of the hindrances and attainment of Purification of Mind was not because of jhæna–samædhi.

            Let us now see how Særiputta Paribbæhaka realised the truth after hearing a stanza from the Ven. Assaji, a disciple of the Buddha. Særiputta asked the Ven. Assaji whose dhamma he professed. The Ven. Assaji uttered this terse expression of dhamma:

“Those things which proceed from a cause,
Of these the Truth finder has told that Cause,
And that which is their stopping ...
the great recluse has such a doctrine.”

           When the Ven. Særiputta had heard this stanza, there arose dhamma-vision, dustless, stainless, that ‘whatsoever is of the nature to uprise, all that is of the nature to stop.”

            When Moggalæna Pribbæjaka heard this dhamma from the Ven. Særiputta, there arose in him dhamma-vision in the same manner.” (53)

            (See Book of Discipline, Part IV, Page 53–54. Sacred Books of the Buddhists, Vol. XIV).

            “Again, the Lord knowing by mind the reasoning in the minds of these twelve myriad brahmins and householders of Mægadha, talked a progressive talk .... When the Lord knew that their minds were ready, malleable, devoid of hindrances uplifted, pleased, then he explained to them the teaching on dhammas which the Awakened Ones have themselves discovered: ill, uprising, stopping, the Way. As they were (sitting) in those very seats, dhamma–vision, dustless, arose to them, that ‘whatever is of the nature to uprise, all that is of the nature to stop.’ (The remaining) one myriad declared themselves to be lay–followers” (54) (ibid, Pages 48–49)’ ‘Dhamma-vision’ means ‘Sotæpatti-maggañæ¼a’ (55)

            King Bhimbisæra and his people of Mægadha ... one hundred and ten thousand all told ... did not attain jhæna but overcame the hindrances, attained Purification of Mind and finally Sôtæpatti magga by reflecting on the dhamma while listening to the Buddha’s discourses.

            Again, there arose to Yasa, the young man of a rich family, his parents, his wife, his fifty friends dhamma – vision in the same manner. (56) (ibid, Pages 23–28)

            Let us now see how Bæhiya Dæruciriya realised the truth. “Bæhiya of the Bark Garment ... being esteemed, honoured, thought much of, worshipped and with deference paid to him ... got plenty of robes and alms–food, bed and seat, comforts and medicines for sickness”. Bæhiya wondered whether he was an arahant. So a devatæ, who was formerly a dhamma-friend of his, came to where he was, and told him that he was not an arahant. Bæhiya was filled with remorse and then went in a great hurry to the Exalted One and requested him to teach him.

            “The Exalted One admonished Bæhiya with this concise teaching. ‘Bæhiya, then you must train yourself: In the seen, there will be just the seen, in the heard just the heard ......” Thereupon, Bæhiya, thanks to this concise dhamma–teaching of the Exalted One, by not clinging, thenceforth released his mind from the cankers.” (57) (Udæna: Pages 8–9, Sacred Books of the Buddhists).

            “Bæhiya, while listening to the discourse of the Buddha, established in virtue and mental calm, developed vipassanæ contemplation, and possessed of swift direct knowledge (khippa abhiññæ), overcame all cankers and became a pa¥isambhidæpatta arahant,” (58) (Commentary to Udæna, 58)

            This Bæhiya Sutta and its Commentary also show vividly that Bæhiya Dæruciriya, although bereft of jhæna, overcame the hindrances, and attained Purification of Mind and gained vipassanæ, magga and phala ñæ¼as while listening to the Buddha’s terse discourse. As a matter of fact, innumerable individuals, although bereft of jhæna, overcame the hindrances and realised the truth while listening to the discourses of the Buddha.

            I have placed before the Ven. Kheminda a number of most reliable Pæ¹i Texts, Commentaries and Sub–commentaries for his consideration, and if he understands them, I hope he will give up his obviously wrong view that vipassanæyænika also develops samatha at the stage of Purification of Mind.

ANSWER TO 3 (b)

            The Ven. Kheminda asserts that the terms samathayænika and vipassanæyænika appear only at the stage of Purification of View. To use his own words, “In support of this assertion he does not cite any authority. Mere assertions, however, do not carry conviction.” In fact, his assertion is but a figment of his imagination.

            This wrong assertion deserves no special treatment because my answer to 3 (a) covers the point also. I have pointed out there that samathayænika attains Purification of Mind by means of samatha and vipassanæyænika attains Purification of Mind by means of vipassanæ. So, samathayænika and vipassanæyænika are differentiated at the stage of Purification of Mind. These two terms come into use at the very first stage, and not at the stage of Purification of View.

            If, as the Ven. Kheminda takes it, vipassanæyænika, like samathayænika, develops samatha at the stage of Purification of Mind and develops vipassanæ only at the stage of Purification of View, on the ground that samatha precedes vipassanæ, he must then be regarded as samathayænika, and not vipassanæyænika. If what the Ven. Kheminda asserts were true, it is opposed to what is stated in Pa¥isambhidæmagga: “Thus, vipassanæ comes first, samatha afterwards.” (59) I wonder whether the Ven. Kheminda interprets  this sentence in this manner: “Thus, samatha comes first, vipassanæ comes in the middle, and samatha comes afterwards.” If the Ven. Kheminda’s assertion holds any water there cannot possibly be any vipassanæyænika: all shall have to be classified as samathayænika. It could not, certainly, be so. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda's assertion that vipassanæyænika develops concentration at the stage of Purification of Mind cannot happen, to use his own words again, “in the realm of fact but of fiction.”

            This being so, the Ven. Kheminda’s view that the terms samathayænika and vipassanæyænika appear only at the stage of Purification of View is diametrically opposite to the Buddha’s teachings. To be convinced that my observation is correct, he should make a careful review of my lengthy answer to 3 (a).

NOTES

            51. M. (II, 43) Atha kho bhægava upalissa gahapatim kallacittaµ muducittaµ vinivaranacittaµ udaggacittaµ pasannacittaµ, atha ya buducittaµ samukkamsika dhammadesana, taµ pakasesi dukkaµ samudayaµ nirodhaµ maggam. Seyyathæpi næma suddhaµ vatthaµ apagatakalakaµ sammad’eva rajanaµ pattiganheyya, evaµ’eva uPæ¹issa gahapatissa tasmin’–yeva asane virajaµ vitamalaµ dhammacakkhum udapædi” yaµ kin–ci samudayadhammam, sabbaµ taµ nirodha–dhamman” ti.

            52. MC. (III, 65) Dhammacakkhun–ti upari brahmayusutte tinnaµ maggænam, cularahulo-vade asavakkhayass’etaµ næmam. Idha pana sotæpattimaggo adhippeto.

            53. Vin. (III, 51) Atha kho ayasma assaji særiputtassa paribbajakassa imaµ dhammapariya-yaµ abhasi.

Ye dhammæ hetuppabhava, tesaµ hetum tathægato aha, tesam–ca yo nirodho, evam–vadi mahasamano–ti.

Athakho særiputtassa paribbajakassa imaµ dhammapari-yayaµ sutvæ virajaµ dhammacakkhum udapædi “yaµ kin–ci samudayadhammaµ subbaµ taµ nirodhadha-mman” ti. Atha kho moggallanassa paribbajakassa imaµ dhammapariyayaµ sutvæ virajaµ ... nirodhadha-mman” ti.

            54. Vin, (III, 47). Atha kho bhægava tesaµ dvadasanahutanaµ magadhikanaµ brahmano–gahapatikanaµ cetasæ cetoparivitakkaµ annaya anupubbim kathaµ kathesi ... Yadæ te bhægava annasi kallacitte muducitte vinivaranacitte udaggacitte pasannacitte, atha ya buddhanaµ sumukkamsika dhammadesana, taµ pakasesi dukkaµ samudayaµ nirodhaµ maggaµ ...ekadasa–nahutanaµ magadhikanaµ brahma¼a–gahapatikanaµ bimbisarappamukhanaµ tasmim’yeva asane virajaµ vitamalaµ dhammacakkhum udapædi “yaµ kin-ci samadayadhammaµ sabbaµ taµ nirodha–dhamman” ti. Ekanhutaµ upasakattaµ pativedesi.

            55. VinC (III, 254). Dhammacakkun–ti sotæpattimaggañæ¼am.

            56. Vin. (III, 22) Yasassa kulaputtassa bhægava anupubbin kathaµ kathesi ...Yadæ bhægava annasi yasaµ kulaputtaµ kallacittaµ muducittaµ vinivaranacittaµ udaggactittaµ pasannacittaµ... Yasassa kulaputtassa tasmin’yeva asane virajaµ vitamalaµ dhammacakkhum udapædi “yaµ kin–ci samudayadhammaµ sabbaµ taµ nirodhadhamman” ti.

            (Ibid. 23) Setthisa gahapatissa ... (ibid, 25) Tesaµ (ayasmato yasassa matapuranadutiyi-kanam) ... (ibid, 26) Tesaµ (ayasmato yassassa catunnaµ gihisshayakanam) ... (ibid, 27) Tesaµ (pannasa-mattanaµ gihisahayakanam) tasmin = yeva asane virajaµ vitamalaµ dhammacakkhum udapædi “yaµ kinci samudayadhammaµ sabbaµ taµ nirodhadhamman” ti.

            57. Udn (85) Tasmæt’iha te bahiya evaµ sikkhitabbam: “dhi¥¥he di¥¥hamattaµ bhavissati, sute sutamattaµ bhavissati, mute mutamattaµ bhavissati, viññate viññate–mattaµ bhavissati” ti. Evaµ–hi te bahiya sikkhitabbam. Atha kho bahiyassa dæruciriyassa bhægavato imæya dhamma–desanæya tavadeva anupadaya asavehi cittaµ vimucci.

            58. UdnC. (84–85) So hi satthu dhammaµ sunanto eva sølæni sodhetva yathæladdhaµ cittasa-madhim nissaya vipassanaµ patthapetva khippabhinnataya tavadeva sabbasave khepetva saha patisambhidahi arahattaµ papuni.

            59. Ps. (287) Iti pathamaµ vipassanæ, paccha samatho.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–VII

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

ANSWER TO NO. 4

            In my Rebuttal I–I, I have mentioned that the Ven. Kheminda makes, in the main, fourteen allegations and assertions in his Reply to my Rejoinder. I have already given answers to Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

            The Ven. Kheminda writes: “The development to the Noble Eightfold Path is described in two ways: (i) by way of the three aggregates of virtue, concentration and wisdom; by way of the seven purifications. In both these methods the development of insight begins at the third stage of Purification of View. Meanwhile the first two stages have been already developed.”

            It is hardly necessary to rebut this assertion, because this matter has been fully dealt with in the answers to Nos. 2 and 3. Therein I have explained at length, quoting the relevant passages from Pæ¹i Texts, Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries, that a vipassanæ–yænika, established in virtue, practises satipa¥¥hæna contemplation and attains first of all Purification of Mind, comprised in the aggregate of concentration, and only after that, in due order, five purifications beginning with Purification of View, comprised in the aggregate of wisdom.

            If the Ven. Kheminda understands this explanation he will also realise that his assertion that to a Suddha–vipassanæyænika vipassanæ contemplation does not begin at the stage of Purification of Mind but only at the stage of Purification of View is absolutely wrong. I shall not go further but instead urge the Ven. Kheminda to make a careful review of my answers to Nos. 2 and 3.

            I may as well make a gift of the Dhamma by quoting a paragraph from the Magga³ga Døpanø by the Most Venerable Ledø Sayædaw of revered memory.

“According to the method of Sukkha–vipassaka Puggala (one who practises Insight only), samatha (calm) and ænæpæna (Exhaling and Inhaling), etc. are not practised separately. After observing the three constituents of the Morality–group of the Eightfold Path, the practice of the Wisdom–group of the Eightfold Path is undertaken. The three constituents of the Concentration–group of the Eightfold Path come along together with the two constituents of the Wisdom–group of the Eightfold Path, and these two sets are termed Pañca³gikamagga (the five constituents of the Eightfold Path). These five form one group and together with the aforesaid three constituents of the Morality–group of Eightfold Path.” –Magga³ga Døpanø, The Manual of the Constituents of the Noble Path, Page 62–63, as translated, revised and edited by the English Editorial Board of the Union of Myanmar Buddha Sæsana Council.

            The name of the Most Venerable Ledø Sayædaw is surely not unknown to the Ven. Kheminda. As a matter of fact the Ledø Sayædaw was a distinguished luminary in the Buddhist world for more than half a century, a shining light not only in the East but also in the West. He was deeply respected by Mrs. Rhys Davids and other pioneers of the Pæ¹i Text Society, London, for his profound knowledge of the Tipi¥aka. He was the author of a considerable number of Buddhist Treatises, notably on Vipassanæ. His works are held in high esteem both by the Sa³gha and the laity. He had categorically stated that it is not necessary for a sukkha–vipassaka to develop samatha separately as he, established in virtue, can begin vipassanæ contemplation.

            The Ven. Kheminda should now be able to clear his doubt and have a correct view. In case in is still unable to see from the right angle, his attention must be drawn to the following passage taken from The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga), page 310, of which he is one of the joint translators.

            “Bare Insight: One overcomes the hindrances through understanding–strength. One discerns name after form has been penetrated by way of the bodily formations. Beginning with insight, he develops serenity.”

            I should like to analyse the passage. “Beginning with Insight, he develops serenity” surely means that a suddhavipassanæ–yænika puggala begins with insight as soon as he starts contemplation. It does not certainly mean that he makes an effort to acquire jhæna by means of samatha with a view to attaining Purification of Mind and then begins vipassanæ contemplation only at the stage of Purification of View. That he does not develop samatha in order to attain Purification of Mind is all the more clear because of the words: “one overcomes the hindrances through understanding. strength.”

            These words explain how Purification of Mind is attained. In explaining this point, it is clearly shown that the hindrances are overcome “through understanding–strength” and not “through jhænic samædhi”. Judging by this, it is very clear that a suddhavipassanæ–yænika puggala does not develop to attain Purification of Mind, and also that he overcomes hindrances and attains Purification of Mind while developing vipassanæ.

            “One overcomes the hindrances through understanding–strength.” This sentence is quite in agreement with the Ledø Sayædaw’s statement: “The three constituents of the Concentration–group of the Eightfold Path come along together with the two constituents of the Wisdom–group of the Eightfold Path.”

            It is quite evident that the Ven. Kheminda accepted the above mentioned view of suddhavipassanæ as expressed in Vimuttimagga while he was translating the particular passage thereof. Why? Because there is no note of dissent in this respect in the footnotes but instead the translators had thought it fit to reproduce complete passages of the Pa¥isambhidæmagga, showing insight that precedes serenity. I really cannot understand why the Ven. Kheminda is now opposing with tenacity the correct view which he himself had accepted with satisfaction, a view which is quite in accord with the authoritative Pæ¹i Text.

ANSWER TO NO. 5

            The Ven. Kheminda writes: “After developing virtue it is not possible to develop wisdom skipping concentration. Should vipassanæ be developed without samatha the stages of Purification of Mind and Purification of View would be reversed.” Answers to Nos. 2 and 3 have, in fact, covered this point. However, I shall explain it again briefly here.

            In the Bøhiya and Uttiya Suttas, AmbaPæ¹i Vagga, Mahævagga Saµyutta, the Buddha exhorts thus: “Monk, leaning on virtue, established in virtue, you can cultivate the four stations of mindfullness.” (See Notes 1 and 2). This exhortation clearly shows that, if one is not samathayænika, he can contemplate vipassanæ, when he is established in virtue. Nevertheless, as explained in my answer to No. 2(b) with reference to the Sæla Sutta and its Commentary, momentary, access or fixed concentration, as the case may be, can be developed in the course of contemplation of the four stations of mindfullness and Purification of Mind attained. After the attainment of Purification of Mind, Purification of View can be attained.

            How can it be said that contemplation by this method skips concentration? That is why the Ledø Sayædaw pointed out thus: “The three constituents of the Concentration–group of the Eightfold Noble Path come along together with the two constituents of the Wisdom–group.” Because of the fact that by means of concentration arisen while developing vipassanæ, hindrances are overcome and Purification of Mind attained, and thereafter Purification of View is attained, it cannot be said that the two stages are reversed.

            This order of progress is stated in The Progress of Insight, page 4. “While thus practicing the exercise of noticing with unhindered mind, the noticing mind will get more close to and fixed at whichever object is noticed, and the act of noticing will proceed without break. At that time there arises in him, in uninterrupted succession, “the concentration of mind lasting for a moment”, directed to each object noticed.’ This is called ‘Purification of Mind’.”

            The attainment of Purification of View is stated thus on page 7 thereof.

            “When that knowledge has come to maturity, the meditator understands thus: ‘At the moment of breathing–in there is just the rising movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides’. Understanding it thus in these and other instances, he knows and sees for himself by noticing thus: ‘There is only that pair: a material process as object, and a mental process of knowing it; and it is to that pair alone that the terms of conventional usage ‘being’, ‘person’ or ‘soul’, ‘I’ or ‘another’, ‘man’ or ‘woman’ refer. But apart from that dual process there is no separate person of being, I or another, man or woman. This is called Purification of View.”

            From these passages, the Ven. Kheminda should be able to see clearly that the stages of Purification of Mind and View are not reversed.

ANSWER TO NO. 6

            The Ven. Kheminda writes: Vipassanæ cannot be developed before the development of Purification of Mind and Virtue. This point has been covered by the answers to Nos. 2 and 3. However, a brief explanation may be made here. Neither the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw nor I have ever said or written to the effect that samatha or vipassanæ can be developed without Purification of Virtue. It is true that a samathayænika yogø, established in virtue, attains Purification of Mind by means of serenity and then develops insight. But as for a vipassanæ–yænika yogø, he established in virtue, does not develop serenity but develops insight straightaway, and thereby attains Purification of Mind. That this practice is quite in accord with the Bæhiya, Uttiya and Bhikkhu suttas of Mahævagga Saµyutta, I have explained at length in my answers to Nos. 2 and 3. If the Ven. Kheminda could understand them, the point contained in No. 6 would be cleared.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–VIII

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

ANSWER TO No. 7(a)

            Referring to the quotation from the Commentary to the Visuddhimagga reproduced on page 4 of The Progress of Insight, the Ven. Kheminda alleges that “it is this concentration that the Venerable Mahæsø Sayædaw claims to be Purification of Mind or Consciousness which the vipassanæyænika develops”. If the Ven. Kheminda has chosen to say “this type of concentration” instead of “this concentration”, it can be said that he understands Purification of Mind as described in The Progress of Insight. Why? Because the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw did not quote that particular passage from the Commentary to the Visuddhimagga to point out that momentary unification of mind, as stated in the chapter relating to Respiration Mindfullness of the Visuddhimagga means Purification of Mind, but to show that momentary Concentration, called Purification of Mind, has that type of power (strength) contained in the said momentary unification of mind.

            Undoubtedly, the author of Paramatthamañjþsæ explained momentary unification of mind, accepting the explanation of “Samædhiyati” of Ænæpænassati Sutta in the Commentary to Uparipa¼¼æsa. It is only natural that the Commentators and Sub–Commentators of a later age adopt, if they think it fit, the words of those who had gone before them. That “Samædhiyati” is also mentioned in the succeeding Kæyagatæsati Sutta, but there being no difference in meaning between it and “Samædhiyati” of the previous Ænæpænassati Sutta, no explanation is given again therein.

            The explanation of that word “samædhiyati” is thus: “Samædhiyati” means “well–placed, as if fixed concentration is attained”. (See Note 42) “Samædhiyati” of Sections on the Modes of Deportment, Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension and Reflection on the Modes of Materiality in the Kæyagatæsati Sutta means momentary concentration only. Because in those Sections, it is not possible to attain proper access concentration and fixed concentration, in accordance with the passage of the Commentary to the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta: “The remaining twelve exercises are subjects of meditation leading only to Access Concentration”. (Note 60) Judging by this fact, there is no room for doubt that, in showing the strength of momentary concentration of a vipassanæyænika, Paramatthamañjþsæ explained, accepting the explanation: “as if fixed concentration is attained” from the Commentary to Uparipa¼¼æsa.

            In case, as alleged by the Ven. Kheminda, the Mahæsø Sayædaw wished to say that the said momentary unification of mind is Purification of Mind, he would have quoted directly the passage from the Visuddhimagga, chapter relating to Respiration Mindfullness, containing the phrase, “momentary unification of mind”. Here, instead of doing so, he quoted only the passage from the Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, dealing with momentary unification of mind, which goes to show clearly that he never meant to say the said momentary unification of mind is Purification of Mind, as also that he meant to show momentary concentration of mind, called Purification of Mind, has that type of power (strength) in the said momentary unification of mind.

            As a matter of fact, I had thought that the Ven. Kheminda understood the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw’s object in making that quotation. Because in his first article: Momentary Concentration and Purification and Purification of Mind (World Buddhism, 1966, July, page 7, middle column), he had written thus: “In this connection the author cites on page 4 a passage from the commentary to the Visuddhimagga (Paramatthamañjþsæ), reproduced at 3 (b) above, to indicate it seems, the strength of Momentary Concentration.” Notwithstanding what he had said in his very first article, the Ven. Kheminda had apparently used the words “it seems” with the definite purpose of driving home his point. That he cannot put any other construction than what it originally conveys will be made clear after a careful re–reading of the following paragraphs from The Progress of Insight.

            “At that time there arises in him, in uninterrupted succession ‘the concentration of mind lasting for a moment’ directed to each object noticed. This is called Purification of Mind.”

            “Though that concentration has only momentary duration its power of resistance to being overwhelmed by opposition corresponds to that of Access Concentration.

            “In the Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, in the explanation of the chapter relating to Respiration Mindfullness, it is said thus: ‘Momentary unification of Mind’ means the concentration of mind lasting only for a moment. For that type of concentration, too, when it occurs uninterruptedly with its respective object in a single mode and is not overcome by opposition, fixed the mind immovably, as if in absorption.”

            The orderly arrangement of the said paragraphs clearly shows (1) how momentary concentration arises at the moment of Purification of Mind, (2) that momentary concentration is called Purification of Mind, (3) that momentary concentration has the same power as that of access concentration, and to emphasise that power of resistance of momentary concentration, a relevant passage from the Commentary to the Visuddhi magga has been evidently quoted. It must be repeated that it was not meant to point out by that quotation that momentary unification of mind in the chapter relating to Respiration Mindfullness is Purification of Mind. This momentary unification of mind, as commented upon in the Commentary to the Visuddhi magga, is cited because the relevant passage shows clearly the power of that type of momentary concentration arisen while developing vipassanæ.

            Although the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw is well aware that Respiration Mindfullness is samatha kamma¥¥hæna, he alluded to the commentarial passage dealing with Respiration Mindfullness, in connection with Purification of Mind attained by a vipassanæyænika, not to show that momentary unification of mind is Purification of Mind but obviously to show that momentary concentration, having the same strength as that of momentary unification of mind, is called Purification of Mind.

            Having made an unfair allegation that the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw claims momentary unification of mind to be Purification of Mind, the Ven. Kheminda arbitrarily passed a judgment: “Thereby he says in other words that Purification of Mind or Consciousness of the vipassanæyænika arises after insight at the third purification, whereas Purification of Mind or Consciousness is the second purification.”

            There is not the slightest indication in The Progress of Insight that Purification of Mind arises after insight, or Purification of Mind arises at the third purification. But the Ven. Kheminda quotes a sentence from the Visuddhimagga: “at the actual time of insight arises momentary unification of mind” (chapter relating to Respiration Mindfullness) to be in accord with the above–mentioned allegation. Relying on this sentence he had made not only an unfair allegation but also passed a judgment arbitrarily.

            As a matter of fact, it is the Ven. Kheminda himself who draws the wrong inference that Purification of Mind arises after insight, or Purification of Mind arises at the third purification. It is certainly not the Purification of Mind stated in The Progress of Insight, because nowhere therein it has been stated that momentary unification of mind described in the chapter relating to Respiration Mindfullness, is Purification of Mind. Therefore, the view that Purification of Mind and Purification of View are reversed, that “the second is preceded by the third”, that “the proximate cause is preceded by its result” is that of the Ven. Kheminda, not the statement of The Progress of Insight.

ANSWER TO No. 7 (B)

            Again, referring to the passages dealing with Purification of Mind of The Progress of Insight, the Ven. Kheminda has made another allegation that Purification of Mind is given a new definition. This allegation is made also because he fails to grasp the explanation therein. Holding fast to the view that jhæna–samædhi alone is sammæsamædhi, he understands only how Purification of Mind is attained by means of jhæna, and it is no wonder that he understands the explanations in The Progress of Insight how Purification of Mind is attained by means of momentary concentration, or nominal access concentration, as described in the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta, sections on the Modes of Deportment, the four Kinds of Clear Comprehension and Reflection on the Modes of Materiality.

            Of course, the Ven. Kheminda would surely understand the direct statement that Purification of Mind is attained by means of jhæna. It is a matter for conjecture whether he will understand even if it is directly stated that Purification of Mind of attained by means of access concentration, for he is addicted to the view that jhæna–samædhi alone is sammæ–samædhi.

            Although the Ven. Kheminda holds the view that Purification of Mind is attained by means of jhæna, it appears that, if the word “jhæna” is not directly used to describe the mental process of a samathayænika at the stage of Purification of Mind, he would not accept that explanation. He may allege that this is just a new definition given to Purification of Mind. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda is perhaps not to blame when he fails to understand the explanation in a practical manner of the mental process of a vipassanæyænika at the stage of Purification of Mind, with no particular reference to the samædhi by which it is attained. The author appears to be responsible for the act of omission, for he has not mentioned the name of the particular samædi.

            However, it must be observed that although the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw has not named a particular concentration at the stage of Purification of Mind, he has clearly explained on pages 4 and 5 of The Progress of Insight, in accordance with the Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries, that the said Purification of Mind is momentary concentration, otherwise called access concentration.

            I should like to explain a little further. Out of the meditation subjects leading to access concentration explained in the Commentary to the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta, The Progress of Insight deals briefly with three of them, namely: The modes of Deportment, the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension and Reflection on the Modes of Materiality. Contemplation of one of them leads to access concentration and thereby Purification of Mind is attained. The Progress of Insight explains this point. So, how can it be said with any justification that a new definition is given to Purification of Mind which is attained by means of access concentration explained in accordance with the Commentary to the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta.

            However, it must be added that although it is called access concentration, these meditation subjects not being those leading to absorption concentration, it is not that access concentration that arises in the neighbourhood of jhæna. It is nominal access concentration, but properly it is momentary concentration. I have explained this fact in my answer to No.3 (a). Reference may be invited to the first and second columns, page 183, World Buddhism, February, 1963.

            To say that Purification of Mind is given a new definition is obviously not fair, in  view of the above explanations which are quite in consonance with Pæ¹i Texts, Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries, but on the other hand one who says so reveals that he is wanting in learning as well as in practical meditation experience.

NOTE

            (60) DC. (II, 363) Sesæni dvædasæpi upacærakamma¥¥hænæneva.

MOMENTARY CONCE3NTRATION

Reply To Rejoinder I–IX

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

ANSWER TO NO. 7 (C)

            The Ven. Kheminda’s allegation that Purification of Mind takes the place of Purification of View appears to have been made without a careful reading of The Progress of Insight In my answer to No. 5 I have already explained that Purification of Mind is at its rightful second place, Purification of View at its rightful third place in The Progress of Insight. I have also explained this point at length in my answer to No.(3) (a). Nevertheless, in order that the readers may be able to decide for themselves whether the Ven. Kheminda’s allegation is justified or not, I propose to reproduce from The Progress of Insight a paragraph relating to Purification of Mind, and the whole section dealing with Purification of View.

            “While thus practising the exercise of noticing with ‘unhindered mind’, the noticing mind will get more close to and fixed at whichever object is noticed, and the act of noticing will proceed without break. At that time there arises in him, in uninterrupted succession, ‘the concentration of mind lasting for a moment’, directed to each object notices. This is called ‘Purification of Mind.”

            “Endowed with the ‘Purification of Mind, and continuing the practice of noticing’ the meditator now gets to know body–and–mind analytically as follows: ‘The rising (i.e. upward movement of the abdomen) is one process; the falling (i. e. downward movement) is another, sitting is another; touching is another, etc.’ In that way he gets to know how to distinguish each bodily process that he notices. Further: the knowing of the rising movement is one process; the knowing of the falling movement is another. ‘In that way he gets to know each mental act of noticing. Furthermore: ‘the rising movement is one process; the knowing of it is another. The falling movement is one process; the knowing of it is another”, and so on. In that way he gets to know how to distinguish each bodily and mental process. All that knowledge, indeed, comes from simple noticing, not from reasoning; that is to say: it is knowledge by direct experience arrived at by the mere act of noticing, and not knowledge derived from ratiocination.

            Thus when seeing a visual object with the eye, the meditator knows how to distinguish each single factor involved:

SATIPA¿¿HÆNA VIPASSANÆ

            ‘The eye is one; the visual object is another; seeing is another, and knowing it is another’. The same manner applies in the case of the other sense functions.

            “For, at that time, in each act of noticing, the meditator comes to know analytically the mental processes of noticing, and those of thinking and reflecting, knowing them for himself through direct knowledge, by his experience; thus: ‘they have the nature of going towards an object, inclining towards an object, cognizing an object’. On the other hand, he knows analytically the material processes going on in the whole body, which are here called by the names of the ‘rising and falling movements of the abdomen’, ‘sitting’ etc., knowing them thus: ‘these have not the nature of going or inclining towards an object, or of cognizing an object’. Such knowing is called ‘knowing matter (or the body) by the manifestation of nondeter-mining’. For it is said in the Mþla–¿økæ, the “Principal Sub–Commentary’ to the Abhidhamma Vibha³ga; in other words ‘non–determining’ (as in the passage quoted) should be understood as having no faculty of cognizing an object.

            “Such knowledge as this, which analyses in each act of noticing both the bodily process noticed and the mental process engaged in noticing, according to their true essential nature, is called ‘Analytical knowledge of Body and Mind.’

            “When that knowledge has come to maturity, the meditator understands thus: ‘at the moment of breathing -in, there is just the rising movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides; at the moment of breathing-out, there is just the falling movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides’. Understanding it thus in these and other instances, he knows and sees for himself by noticing thus: ‘there is here only that pair, material process is object, and a mental process of knowing it, and it is to that pair alone that the terms of conventional usage ‘being’, ‘person’ or ‘soul’, ‘I’ or ‘another’, ‘man’ or ‘woman’ refer. But apart from that dual process there is no separate person or being, I or another, man or woman’. This is called ‘Purification of View’.”

            If one carefully makes an analysis of the above passages, it will be vividly seen that (1) Purification of Mind is first attained, (2) then at the beginning of the section dealing with the Purification of View the yogø who has attained Purification of Mind continues to contemplate, (3) gains analytical knowledge of Body and Mind, (4) and finally when that knowledge has come to maturity, gets rid of the belief in “self” and attains Purification of View, one step after another as experienced in the practical contemplation. Purification of Mind and Purification of View are thus in their rightful places.

ANSWER TO NO. 7(D)

            The Ven. Kheminda writes: “The Venerable Ña¼aponika Thera says ....... in The Heart Of Buddhist Meditation...... it has been introduced into the practice by the Venerable U Sobhana Mahæthera as it was found to be very effective .....This is the third reason for saying that this method is now.”

            Whether the Ven. Kheminda’s allegation is true or not, I cannot do better than reproduce the following passage from The Heart of Buddhist Meditation. They speak for themselves.

            “It was in Myanmar, in this twentieth century, that a deep-reaching change was effected in that situation by monks who, by their searching spirit, clearly outlined again the singular features of the Way of Mindfullness. Through their own energetic meditative effort they removed for others many obstacles to the correct under-standing and practice of the Only Way. And there were many in Myanmar, and soon also in other countries, who followed them with earnest endeavour.”

            “It was at the beginning of this century that a Myanmar monk, U Nærada by name... developed the principles and details of the practice which formed the basis for those who followed him as his direct or indirect disciples.

            “In order to give a name to the Venerable U Nærada’s method of training in which the principles of Satipa¥¥hæna are applied in such a definite and radical way, we propose to call it here the Myanmar Satipa¥¥hæna Method; not in the sense that it was a Myanmar invention but because it was in Myanmar that the practice of that ancient Way had been so ably and energetically revived.

            “The pupils of the Venerable U Nærada spread the knowledge of his method in Myanmar as well as in other Buddhist countries, and many were greatly benefited by it in their progress on the Path. The Venerable U Nærada Mahæthera, widely known in Myanmar as the Jetavan (or Mingun) Sayædaw, passed away on the 18th March 1955, aged 87. Many believe that he attained to final Deliverance (Arahatta).

            “It is a cause of deep gratification that, in present–day Myanmar, the practice of, and instruction in, Satipa¥¥hæna is flourishing and to a remarkable extent bearing results, thus providing a striking contrast to the waves of materialism surging throughout the world. Satipa¥¥hæna is to–day a strong force in the religious life of Myanmar. There are numerous training centres in the country, where many thousands have undergone courses of strict Satipa¥¥hæna practice. These courses are attended by monks and lay people alike. It was a sig¼ of mature wisdom that the Government of Myanmar, under the leadership of Prime Minister U Nu, soon after the country achieved independence, encouraged and supported these centres of meditation, appreciating that minds that have been trained there will be an asset to the country in any walk of life.

            “Prominent among the teachers of Satipa¥¥hæna today is the Venerable Mahæsø Sayædaw (U Sobhana Mahæ-thera) who, through his personal instruction in meditation courses, and through his books and lectures, has contributed much to the development of the practice in Myanmar. Many thousands have been benefited by his wise and experienced guidance. Men and women, young and old, poor and rich, learned and simple folk have taken up the practice with great earnestness and enthusiasm. And results are not lacking.

            “Primarily, thanks to the efforts of the Venerable Mahæsø Sayædaw and his pupils, the practice of this method of meditation has spread to Thailand and Ceylon, and preparations are being made for a meditation centre in India.

            “In the following pages, information will be given about a course of strict meditative practice according to the Satipa¥¥hæna method. The course was held at the Thathana Yeiktha, at Yangon (Myanmar) under the guidance of the Venerable Mahæsø Sayædaw (U Sobhana Mahæthera)”.

            I should like to reproduce also a paragraph from the Way of Mindfullness by Bhikkhu Soma.

            “It would greatly benefit most people to go in for the training in mindfullness in an intensive way from time to time in a suitable place, under the direction of a good meditation master, if such a person is available, and instill into themselves the habits of recollection, carefulness, discrimination and consideration. In Siaµ and especially in Myanmar there are meditation monasteries (kamathan kyaungs) to which recluse and layman go in search of solitude, periodically, to walk along this way, under the guidance of meditation (kamathan sayæ).

            The above–mentioned passages testify to the fact unmistakably that meditation in accordance with Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta has been in vogue in Myanmar since ancient times, practised all over the country by the Sangha as well as by the laity. It is quite understandable that methods vary at different places, under different teachers. Some prefer Respiration Mindfullness and others respectively practice contemplation of Modes of Deportment, Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension and Reflection on the Modes of Materiality, Feeling and Mind, according as it suits them.

            In respect of Reflection on the Modes of Materiality, some focus their attention on the crown of their heads or a focal point just below the breast where caloricity (te jo) manifests. Some contemplate on the manifestation of oscillation (væyo) at the focal point just below the breast. The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw contemplates on the body and mind beginning with the rising and falling of the abdomen. He teaches his pupils to contemplate by this method. Here the oscillation, called the rising and falling of the abdomen, is the winds in the belly” (Kucchisayavæyo) one of the six kinds of air of air or wind, described in the Section on the Development of the Definition of the Four Elements. This method is taught because it is found to be most effective in the contemplation of elements in accordance with Reflection on the Modes of Materiality and the Development of the Definition of the Four Elements.

            With this in view, the Ven. Ña¼aponika Thera writes: ‘It has been introduced into the practice by the Venerable U Sobhana Mahæthera (Mahæsø Sayædaw) as it was found to be very effective.” No allegation should be made that contemplation of oscillation (væyo), in accordance with the above–mentioned methods described in the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta and Visuddhimagga, is a new method. Should such an allegation be made, it is obviously a baseless one.

            The Ven. Kheminda states: “There are other venerable Sayædaws and theras in Myanmar who do not acknowledge this teaching”. I have explained above that methods vary and those who have been contemplating by other methods that suit them have no reason to change them. But there have been a considerable number of learned Sayædaws, sixty to seventy years old, not to say of thousands of theras, who elect the method as taught by the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw. The venerable Sayædaws who acknowledge the teaching of the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw can be seen at his meditation centre, called Thathana Yeiktha.

            It is true that methods vary in Myanmar and the yogøs practice meditation according to the method that suits them, but there is consensus of view among them all, both the Sangha and the laity, that a vipassanæ–yænika is capable of attaining magga–phala–nibbæna without developing concentration separately. In Ceylon, a difference of opinion prevails on this very point. Although the Ven. Kheminda holds fast to the view that a vipassanæ–yænika develops concentration before he begins to develop insight Mr. S. E. de Silva and the personages of light and leading, cited in his article, “Insight or Vipassanæ Meditation–I” (World Buddhism, January. 1968), hold the view that a vipassanæyænika does not develop concentration separately. Mr. S. E. de Silva writes:

            “Insight Meditation is commenced in one of two ways, as a follow up of Serenity Meditation (Samædhi Bhævanæ), which develops Jhænas (Absorptions) or as Insight before Serenity (Vipassanæ Pubbaga Samatha), as given in the texts, without attempting to develop jhænas, by looking at Mind and Matter and all other compound-ed formations from the angle of view of anicca (Impermanence), dukkha (Infelicity or I11) and anatta (No–self), which process develops Insight and Serenity together.

            “This latter method, known in the texts as Sukkha Vipassanæ (Dry–vision), popularly called the Myanmar method, in Ceylon, because it was re–introduced to Ceylon by Myanmar recently, in accordance with the traditional custom of revival of Buddhist practices between Myanmar, Thailand and Ceylon, when any such practice went into disuse in one of these countries.

            “Centuries of foreign domination, at this time, had woefully degenerated the Buddhist way of life in Ceylon, whereas in Myanmar, this Sukkha Vipassanæ method having been in regular practice, it had transpired that some of the devotees had gained Magga Phala (Sainthood) through this method.

            At the personal request of U Nu, the then Prime Minister of Myanmar, a very ardent Buddhist, and the late Sir U Thwin, who was President of the Buddha Sæsanænuggaha Association, the Ven. Agga Mahæ Pa¼ðita Mahæsø Sayædaw, who is believed to have gained Magga Phala (Sainthood), it is recorded, came down from Shwebo, in November 1940, to the Thathana Yeiktha Centre, in Yangon and opened a meditation centre, Mahæsø Sayædaw himself accepting the Meditation Mastership there.

            “It is to this source that Ceylon’s revival of this Vipassanæ method is to be traced.

            “And Mahæsø Sayædaw commends this Sukkha Vipassanæ (Dry–vision) method in the following terms: It is desirable to work for Lokuttaræ Samædhi, which is nothing but Magga Samædhi and Phala Samædhi (sain thood). To possess this Samædhi it is essential to cultivate Paññæ (Wisdom). To develop this Paññæ it is necessary to carry on the mere practice in Vipassanæ Bhævanæ. When the virtue of Paññæ is Vipassanæ Bhævanæ. When the virtue of Paññæ is duly developed, the necessary qualities for Søla and Samædhi are also acquired.”

            (This quotation indicates that Samædhi Bhævanæ can be dispensed with, when jhænas are not being sought.)

            The Ven. Nærada Mahæ Thera, incumbent of Vajiræræma, Colombo, who has recognised this Sukkha Vipassanæ method in his writings, in introducing Mahæsø Sayædaw to a Colombo audience, referred to him as an undoubted Magga Phala Læbhi (Sainthood achieved) yogævacara bhikkhu.

            “The Ven. Hendiyagala Seelaratna Mahæ Thera of Ceylon, the chief organiser of the Ariya Samatha Society, in its monthly magazine, Vol. I, October 1949, commends this method as follows. Nibbæna is attainable, just as Arahat Sukkha Vippassaka Cakkhupæla did, without any Jhænas.”

            “The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) page 319 (Joint authors, Rev. N. R. H, Ehara, lecturer, Risho University, Japan; Soma Mahæ Thera and Kheminda Thera of Vajiraræma, Colombo,) describes this method tersely: beginning with insight, he develops Serenity.”

            “Shwe Zan Aung in his Compendium of Philosophy, (Pæ¹i Text Society, 1910) emphatically observes: It must be borne in mind that Jhæna is not absolutely necessary to Arahatship. (It is not postulated anywhere in the texts that Jhænas and supernormal Powers vest the holder with quicker or easier access to Nibbæna or to a higher status there.)”

            The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw and his pupils contemplate not only on the rising and falling of the abdomen but also on the Modes of Deportment, Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, Reflection on the Modes of Materiality, Feeling, Mind and Mind States, on whatever occurs at the six sense doors in accordance with the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta, and the Visuddhimagga. Therefore, it is quite patent that the method taught by the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw is in full accord with the teachings of the Buddha.

ANSWER TO. NO. 8

            The Ven. Kheminda points out that in translating ‘vuttappakæraµ samathaµ anuppædetvæ, the word ‘previously’ is an unjustified introduction, because the phrase means ‘just without producing the said serenity’, eva meaning ‘just’. This shows that the Ven. Kheminda fails to understand what those words meant.

            As a matter of fact, in translating anuppædetvæ, the insertion of the word ‘previously’ is not only in consonance with (a) grammar and (b) context, but also helpful to make the meaning more clear. (a) In regard to grammar it should be noted that the suffix 'eva’ is used to denote a very prior to the main verb (pubbakæla), a very posterior to the main verb (aparakæla), and a verb of the same time with the main verb (samænakæla), ‘Tva’ in the sentence kasitvæ vapati (he sows after he has ploughed), the suffix denotes pubbakæla. In the sentences dværaµ aritvæ pavisati (he comes in after he has closed the door), dværaµ ævaritvæ nikkhamati (he goes out after he has closed the door), the suffix denotes oparakæøa. In the phrase andhakæraµ nihantvæna uditoyaµ divakæro (the sun rises dispelling darkness), the suffix denotes samænakæla.

            In translating samathæni anuppædetvæ, to treat anuppædetvæ as aparakæla is not appropriate. Because the Commentary to Dhammadæyæda Sutta explains thus: “When to a vipassanæyænika yogø vipassanæ comes to completion, samædhi is attained at the moment of realisation of the Way, Nibbæna being the object. This (samædhi) is samatha”. (61)

            Again, to treat anuppadetvæ as samanakæla is not appropriate either, because it is not possible to develop both samatha and vipassanæ at the same moment of consciousness. This fact is so very patent that it leaves no room for any doubt.

            Aparakæla and samanakæla being inappropriate, it remains to say that pubbakæla is appropriate. The translation ‘without having previously developed tranquility’ is therefore quite correct, and it is not fair to say that the word ‘previously’ is an unjustified introduction.

            (b) With reference to the context, it is also quite correct. It has been stated earlier in respect of samathayænika: “A person first develops either Access Concentration or Full Concentration.” (62)

            In opposition to this statement, in respect of vipassanæ–yænika, it is definitely stated ‘without having developed tranquility.’ Being opposed to the phrase ‘first develops’ in the previous sentence the phrase ‘without developed tranquility’ means ‘without having first developed tranquility.’ To make it more clear ‘first’ has been replaced by ‘previously’. The translation as it stands is, therefore, quite correct with reference to the context.

            The Ven. Kheminda writes “The ‘va’ (eva) used here for emphasis I have rendered by ‘Just’. But the Mþlapa¼¼æsa ¿økæ explains thus: “By the preclusive term (eva’ of) samathaµ anuppædetvæ va, access concentration is precluded but not momentary concentration, because vipassanæ is not possible without momentary concentration.” (63)

NOTES

            (61) MC. (i, 113) Tassa vipassanæpæripþriyæ tattha jætænaµ dhammænaµ vossaggæramma¼a to upajjati cittassa ekaggatæ. Ayaµ samatho.

            (62) MC. (I, 112) Idhekacco pathamaµ upacærasamædhim væ appanæsamædhim væ uppædeti.

            (63) MSC. (I, 204) Samathaµ anuppædetvævæ–ti avadhæra¼ena upacæra–samædhim nivatteti, na kha¼ikasamædhim, Na hi kha¼ikasamædhim vinæ vipassanæ sambhavati.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–X

By Sayædaw U Ñænuttra, Agga Mehæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

ANSWER To No. 9

            The Ven. Kheminda writes: “After developing virtue it is not possible to develop wisdom, skipping concentration. Should vipassanæ be developed without samatha the stages of Purification of Mind and Purification of View would be reversed.” He would not have written in this manner if he could only interpret rightly the relevant passages of Pæ¹i Texts and Commentaries.

            I shall explain. The Buddha’s discourses admit of two kinds of interpretations: (1) Those which are to be interpreted directly or as they stand, known as nitattha desanæ; (2) those which, if interpreted as they stand, are likely to be in conflict with one another and are, therefore, weighed one against another to get the correct interpretation, known as neyyattha desanæ.

            The Buddha gives a discourse to stress this point in the A³guttara Nikæya, Duka Nipæta, Bala Vagga. (See Gradual Sayings, Part II, Chapter III (5): “Monks, these two misrepresent the Tathægata, What two? He who proclaims as already explained a discourse which needs explanation; and he who proclaims as needing explanation a discourse already explained.” (64)

            Commentators and Sub–Commentators make use of these two methods. The Suttas I reproduced in the previous article as well as in this article are nøtattha desanæ. The Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta passage showing sammæsamædhi as four jhænas is neyyattha desanæ. The Ven. Kheminda, perhaps, not knowing these two methods, has hastily interpreted the Satipa¥¥hæna passage directly or as it stands, as if it were nøtattha desanæ,

            The Ven. Kheminda’s attention is also invited to a similar passage in Sacca Vibha³ga, Sammohavinodanø Commentary (page 113), where sammæsamædhi is shown as four jhænas. However, both passages referred to should not be interpreted in a direct manner or as nitattha desanæ. If they were so interpreted, upacæra samædhi may as well be considered to be not sammæsamædhi. If so considered, it will be at variance with the Suttas showing that upacæra samædhi leads right up to Ariya magga phala. It will also disagree with such Commentaries as Visuddhimagga which definitely states that Purification of Mind is attained by means of upacæra samædhi.

            Therefore, the Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta passage showing sammæsamædhi should be considered as neyyattha desanæ, as in the case of ‘ayameva ariyo a¥¥ha³giko maggo.’ I shall exp¹an. If a¥¥ha³giko is literally interpreted, only the eightfold path associated with the first jhæna would be magga saccæ; the sevenfold path associated with the second jhæna etc. would not be magga saccæ. As a matter of fact, it is not so. The path associated with the second and other jhænas is also magga saccæ. This point is clearly explained by the following passage from Papancasþdanø, Commentary to Majjhima Nikæya, Mþla Pa¼¼æsa.

            “This middle way is sometimes the eightfold noble path, sometimes the sevenfold noble path. I shall expand. This middle way, when associated with lokuttaræ first jhæna, is the eightfold path. When it is associated with the remaining jhænas, it is the sevenfold noble path. In this Dhammadæyæda sutta, however, by stating the maximum the eightfold path is meant.” (65)

            As stated above, although to show the maximum the eightfold path is shown, the sevenfold path is also to be considered as the noble path. In the same way, in the passage showing appanæ, being the superior development, upacæra samædhi, being the inferior development, should be considered to be sammæsamædhi by including it in the jhæna having five component parts.

            Because upacæra samædhi should be considered to be sammæsamædhi as aforesaid, vipassanæ kha¼ika samædhi, which is of the same status as upacæra samædhi, by reason of its capacity to overcome the hindrances, should be considered to be sammæsamædhi. That it should be so considered is shown thus in the Saµyutta Commentary:

            “‘The jhæna axle’ means the axle made of jhæna having five component parts of jhæna, associated with vipassanæ.” (66)

            If this Commentary, judging by the words: ‘five component parts of jhæna, associated with vipassanæ’, it is clear what vipassanæ samædhi is jhæna having five component parts of jhæna. Because it is jhæna having five component parts of jhæna, vipassanæ samædhi is included in sammæsamædhi.

            Again, in the Chapter on Cittuppæda Dhammasa³ga¼ø (page 17), ekaggatæ (self–collectedness), associated with kæmævacara–kusala–citta (Good States of Consciousness), is shown as sammæsamædhi. (67)

            Furthermore in the Visuddhimagga, knowledge of Contemplation of Rise and Fall is shown as the mundane path. “And his seeing of the rise and fall becomes evident to him as the Truth of the Path thus: ‘This is the mundane path’ owing to abolition of confusion about it.” (page 737, Path of Purification by Bhikkhu Næ¼amoli) (68) In showing thus, just as the Knowledge of Contemplation of Rise and Fall is regarded as sammædi¥¥hi, samædhi associated with that knowledge should be regarded as sammæsamædhi. The Ven. Kheminda should, therefore, understand that vipassanæ samædhi also is sammæsamædhi.

            I shall explain further. In the Søla sutta, Pabbata Vagga, Mahævagga Saµyutta, the Buddha says: “Monks, whatsoever monks are possessed of virtue, possessed of concentration, possessed of insight, of release by knowledge and insight, the very sight of such brings much profit, I declare.” To point out samædhisambojjha³ga, the Buddha added: “Now, monks, when a monk who is zestful has body and mind tranquillized, then it is that the limb of wisdom which is tranquility is established in him. When he cultivates this, at such time, by his culture of it, it comes to perfection in him. Happy is he whose body is tranquillized. Of him that is happy the mind is concentrated.” (The Book of the Kindred Sayings, V, pages 55–56). (69)

            In the Commentary to this Sutta, it is stated thus: “Herein, the vipassanæ that precede arahatta magga, that comprise different characteristics, that occur simultaneously at a single moment of consciousness, are factors of enlightenment (bojjha³ga).” (79)

            In the Sammohavinodanø Commentary, dealing with Bojjha³ga Vibha³ga, it is stated thus: ‘Mind is tranquillized’ means mind is kept well, fixed at an object, as if it has reached absorption. ‘It is said’ means ‘it is said that this tranquility of mind, associated with vipassanæ leading to factors of enlightenment, is samædhi–bojjha³ga.’ ........ What is meant by this? This means ‘the vipassanæ that precede Arahatta magga, that comprise different functions and characteristics, that occur simultaneously at a single moment of consciousness, are factors of enlightenment. (71)

            All these textual and commentarial passages clearly show that pubbabhæga samædhi is samædhi–sambojjha¼ga. If it is samædhi–sambojjha³ga, it is surely sammæsamædhi–magga³ga.

            Considering all the points which have been explained above, it is abundantly clear that the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta passage showing four–jhæna–samædhi as sammæsamædhi is not nitattha desanæ, but neyyattha desanæ. Therefore, the Ven. Khemindæ’s view held ever so tenaciously that four–jhæna–damædhi alone is sammæsamædhi is obviously not correct.

            Like the said Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna passage, there are several passages which should not be treated as nitattha desanæ. Da¥¥habba Sutta, Suddhika Vagga, Indriya Saµyutta, contains a sentence: “From what point of view should the controlling power of concentration be regarded? From that of the four jhænas.” (72)

            If this sentence is treated as nitattha, the following sentences contained in the same Sutta must be treated as such; “From what point of view, monks, should the controlling power of faith be regarded? From that of the four limbs of stream–winning. From what point of view should the controlling power of energy be regarded? From that of the four supreme effects. From what point of view should the controlling power of mindfullness be regarded? From that of the four stations of mindfullness. From what point of view should the controlling power of insight be regarded? From the point of view of the four Ariyan truths.” (Kindred Sayøngs V, pages 171–172) (73)

            If they are treated as nitattha desanæ four jhænas having nothing to do with sotæpattiyanga, satipa¥¥hæna and saccæ, it must be regarded that four jhænas do not comprise the controlling powers of faith, mindfullness and insight. As a matter of fact, it must not be so regarded. Why? Because five controlling powers are comprised in all Kæma (sensual), Mahaggata (sublime) and Lokuttaræ (supramundane) Kusala (good) states of consciousness.

            That they comprise five controlling powers is explained thus in the Commentary to the first Sutta of Suddhika Vagga: “The controlling powers of faith concentration and wisdom are comprised in kusala (good) and vipæka (resultant) mental states of four bhþmis and kriya (inoperative) mental state, and the controlling powers of energy and concentration are comprised in kusala mental state of four bhþmis akusala (bad), vipæka and kriya mental states.” (74)

            In Dhammasa³ga¼ø, it will be seen that in the section dealing with Good States of Consciousness, it is stated thus: When a good thought .... has arisen ... then there is the faculty (controlling power) of faith, the faculty (controlling power) of energy, the faculty (controlling power) of mindfullness, the faculty (controlling power) of concentration, the faculty (controlling power) of wisdom (insight). (See page 3, Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics by Mrs. Rhys Davids.) (75)

            It is, therefore, evident that four jhænas comprise the controlling powers of faith, mindfullness and insight. nevertheless, in the Da¥¥habba Sutta, particular mention is made of each of the five controlling powers to emphasise its power in its own sphere. That is why, in the Commentary to this Sutta, it is explained thus: “ This discourse is given to emphasise the controlling powers in their own spheres.” (76)

            Therefore, it must be said that this Sutta is not nøtattha desanæ but neyyattha desanæ.

            In the same way, the Mahæ Satipa¥¥hæna Sutta passage showing four jhænas as sammæ–samædhi is not nøtattha desanæ but neyyattha desanæ. Why? Because as I have explained above, not only four jhæna–samædhi but also vipassanæ momentary samædhi and access samædhi are regarded as sammæsamædhi. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda’s assertion that knowledge of seeing things as they really are is not possible without sammæsamædhi, born of four jhænas, has no substance.

NOTES

            (64) A. (I, 61) Dve’me bhikkhave tathægataµ abbhæcikkhanti. Katame dve? yo ca neyyatthaµ suttantaµ ‘nøtatthaµ suttantaµ ‘neyyattho suttanto’ ti døpeti.

            (65) MC. (I, 112) Aya³–hi majjhima pa¥ipadæ kadæci ariyo a¥¥ha³giko maggo hoti, kadæci satta³giko. Ayañ–ni lokuttaræ–pathamajjhænavasena uppjjamæno a¥¥ha³giko maggo hoti, avasesajjhænavasena satta³giko, Ukka¥¥haniddesato pan’idha a¥¥ha³giko–ti vutto.

            (66) SC (III, 158) Jhænakkho–ti vipassanæsampayuttænaµ pañcannaµ jhæna³gænaµ vase na jhænamaya–akkho.

            (67) Dhs. (17) sammæsamædhi hoti.

            (68) Dism. (II, 268) Yañc’assa udayabbayadassanam, maggo ‘v’ayaµ lokoko–ti maggasaccaµ pakataµ hoti tatra sammohavigatato.

            (69) S, (III, 62) Yasmim samaye bhikkhave bhikkhu tathæ vþpaka¥¥ho taµ dhammaµ anussarati anuvitakketi ....Yasmim samaye bhikkhave bhikkhuno passaddhakæyassa sukhino cittaµ samædhiyati, samædhisambojjha³go tasmim samaye bhikkhuno æraddho hoti, Samædhisambojjha³gaµ tasmim samaye bhævanæ-pæripþrim gacchati.

            (70) SC. (III, 182) Imasmim sutte apubhaµ acarimaµ ekacittakkha¼ikæ nænælakkha¼æ arahattamaggassa pubbabæga vipassanæ bojjha³gæ kathitæ.

            (71) VbhC. (299). Samædhiyatø–ti sammæ ædhiyati, niccalaµ hutvæ ærammane thapiyati, appanæppattaµ viya hoti. Ayaµ vuccati–ti ayaµ bojjha³gasamu¥¥hæpikæ vipassanæsampayuttæ cittekaggatæ samædhi = sambojjha³go næma vuccati ... Ettævatæ kim kathitaµ næma hoti? aubbaµ acarimaµ ekacittakkha¼e ...nænærasalakkh¼a pubbabhægavipassana–bojjha³gæ kathitæ honti.

            (72) S. (III, 172) kattha ca bhikkhave samædhindriyaµ da¥¥habbham? Catþsu jhænesu ettha samædhindriyaµ da¥¥habbam.

            (73) Ibid. (172) Kattha ca bhikkhave saddhindriyaµ da¥¥habbam? Catþsu sotæpattiyangesu ettha saddhindriyaµ da¥¥habbam. Kattha ca bhikkhave viriyindriyaµ da¥¥habbam? Catþsu sammappadhænesu ettha vøriyindriyaµ da¥¥habbam. Kattha ca bhikkhave satindriyaµ da¥¥habbam? Catþsu satipa¥¥hænesu ettha satimdriyaµ da¥¥habbaµ .... Kattha ca bhikkhave Paññindriyaµ da¥¥habbam? Catþsu ariyasaccesu ettha paññindriyaµ da¥¥habam.

            (74) SC (III, 264) Indriyasaµyuttassa pathame saddhindriyaµ satindriyaµ paññindriyam–ti imæni ti¼i catubhþmaka–kusala–vipækesu c’eva kiriyæsu ca labbhanti. Vøriyindriya–samædhindriyæni catubhþmakakusale akusale Vipæke kiriyæyæ–ti sabbattha labhanti.

            (75) Dhs. (17) Yasmim samaye kæmavacaraµ kusalaµ cittaµ uppannaµ hoti .... tasmim samaye ... saddhindriyaµ hoti, vøriyindriyaµ hoti satindriyaµ hoti, samædhindaiyaµ hoti, paññindriyaµ hoti.

            (76) SC (III, 264) Kattha ca bhikkhave suddhindriyaµ da¥¥habbam, catþsu sotæpattiyangesþ–ti–ædi imesaµ indriyaµ savisaye je¥¥hakabhæva–dassanatthaµ vuttaµ.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–XI

By Sayædaw U Nyænuttara, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðita

(Myanmar)

ANSWER TO No. 10

            The Ven Kheminda writes to the effect that concentration developed after insight is called vipassanæ saµyutta samædhi or nibbedhæbhægiya samædhi, it is not called cittavisuddhi. Neither the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw nor I have ever stated that the said samædhi, mentioned in Pa¥isambhidæmagga, is cittavisuddhi, and yet the Ven. Kheminda writes in the above vein as if we have stated to that effect perhaps because he could not grasp what I wrote in my article published in the November, 1966, issue of World Buddhism. (page 101).

            In that article I had explained vipassanæ pubba³gama samatha bhævanæ in accordance with the A³guttara Commentary and Sub–Commentary, Pa¥isambhidæmagga and its Commentary. Then, I had made a definite statement that the concentration developed after insight is Ariya–magga samædhi. Relying on the Papañca–sþdanø commentary and Sub–Commentary, I wrote: “The Commentary as well as the Sub–Commentary referred to above explain clearly that concentration developed after insight is Ariya–magga samædhi.” From the foregoing statement, the Ven. Kheminda will realise that I have stated that the concentration developed after insight is citta–visuddhi.

            Again, to point out that nibbedabhægiya samædhi mentioned as upacæra–appanæ samædhi in the Pa¥isambhidæmagga is Ariya–magga samædhi, although it appears to be Lokiyajhæna samædhi, I wrote that “It appears that this concentration is lokiya–jhæna–samædhi and access concentration that heralds it. If it were so, it will not agree with the sense conveyed by the Papañacasþdanø Commentary and Sub–Commentary. In particular, it will be hard to reconcile with the words ‘the dhammas that arise at the moment’. So the concentration in this passage should be Ariya–magga–samædhi that is developed after insight.

            My explanation will convince even a casual reader that I have never stated that the above–mentioned nibbedabhægiya samædhi is citta visuddhi (Purification of Mind). So the Ven. Kheminda should realise that purification of mind attained by momentary concentration does not convey any suggestion of nibbedabhægiya samædhi.

            (In my Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I, I stated: “In these articles the Ven. Kheminda makes, in the main, the following allegations and assertions: 1 to 14”. Point No 11 has been included through oversight. So I shall now deal with point No. 12)

ANSWER TO No. 12

            The Ven. Kheminda states: “The Commentary to the Dhammadæyæda Sutta describes only that area of development of the yogø’s practice which begins with insight ... It does not cover the whole range of his development. It does not even touch the first two stages of the yogø’s development.” This statement is not correct.

            In the said Commentary the samathayænika’s development is described thus: “Here a person first develops either upacæra samædhi or appanæ samædhi. This is samatha. He contemplates on samædhi and all those associated with it by way of anicca and so forth. This is vipassanæ.” (Note 77)

            If these commentarial words were to be interpreted literally, it would appear to mean that, after Purification of Mind, skipping Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind and Purification of View, as also knowledge by discerning Conditionality and Purification by Overcoming Doubt, vipassanæ is described beginning with knowledge by Comprehension and Purification by knowledge and Vision of What is Path and Not–Path. Why?

            Because contemplation of body and mind by way of anicca and so forth is possible only at the stage of Knowledge by Comprehension and Purification by knowledge and Vision of What is Path and Not–Path. In fact, it should not be interpreted that Purification of View and Purification by Overcoming Doubt are skipped. As Purification by knowledge and Vision of What is Path and Not–Path is described, it should be interpreted that its causal factors Purification of View and Purification by Overcoming Doubt are also virtually described.

            In the same way, in regard to the Commentarial statement: “A vipassanæyænika contemplates on the five aggregates that are objects of clinging by way of anicca and so forth, without developing samatha,” it should be interpreted that because it describes vipassanæ, Purification of Mind, an essential factor thereof, is also virtually described. In the said statement, although it is simply stated that contemplation is made on the five aggregates by way of anicca and so forth just as it can be known that its causal factor, Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind, has been attained, so also it can be known that while contemplating on Body and Mind, vipassanæ momentary concentration, otherwise called access concentration, that can overcome the hindrances, has been developed before the attainment of the Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind. Therefore, the Ven. Kheminda's assertion that the Commentarial statement, referred to above, describes the insight beginning with Purification of View is clearly not correct.

            If contemplation by way of anicca and so forth is interpreted as it stands, it would mean that the description begins with Knowledge by Comprehension and Purification by Knowledge and Vision of What is Path and Not–Path, not with Purification of View, as asserted by the Ven. Kheminda. As a matter of fact, those who are well versed in Buddhist scriptures know the interpretation, as I have stated above, that Purification of Mind, Purification of View and Purification by Overcoming Doubt are also virtually described.

            Again, quoting Rathavinøta Sutta, the Ven. Kheminda takes that when Purification of Mind is attained, Purification of Virtue is no more, when Purification of View is attained, Purification of Mind is no more, and alleges that the confusion that seeks to include in the term Purification all forms of concentration that arise in the course of development of contemplation is due to the failure to locate the area of development of insight.

            In this connection I should like to ask the Ven. Kheminda, if, as he takes it, the preceding Purifications are no more when the succeeding Purifications are attained, whether Purification of Virtue lapses when Purification of Mind is attained. My answer is: “Certainly not. Virtue is purified all the more with the attainment of Purification of Mind.”

            In fact, the statement in the Rathavinita Sutta that Purification of Virtue is of purpose as far as Purification of mind means that effort to attain Purification of Virtue ceases with the attainment of Purification of Mind. By that statement, it is not meant that Purification of Virtue lapses at the stage of Purification of Mind. In the same way, when it is stated that Purification of Mind is of purpose as far as Purification of View, it means that no effort needs be made to attain Purification of  Mind on the attainment of Purification of View. It does not mean that Purification of Mind lapses. Therefore, Purification of Mind stands intact on the attainment of Purification of View and subsequent Purifications.

            That is why Pa¥isambhidæ Magga, Viræga Kathæ, clearly shows that Purification of Mind is sustained at the moment of Ariya Magga by stating thus: “By virtue of its restraints, Purification of Virtue is Viræga (Noble Path). By virtue of its absence of distractions Purification of Mind is Viræga. By virtue of its power of insight, Purification of View is Viræga. (Note 78). In the Commentary to Pa¥isambhidæ Magga, it is stated thus: “Purification of Virtue means Right Speech, Right Deed and Right Livelihood, Purification of Mind means Right Concentration. Purification of View means Right View and Right Thought.” (Note 79).

            Judging by the above–mentioned passages of Pa¥isambhidæ Magga, and its Commentary, seven Purifications remain intact from the moment of their respective attainments throughout the development of insight.

NOTES

            (77) MC. (I, 112) Ihd’ekacco pathamaµ upacærasamædhimvæ appanæsamædhim væ uppædeti, ayaµ samatho. So tañ–ca tamsampayutte ca dhamme aniccædøhi vipassati, ayaµ vipassanæ.

            (78) Ps. (327) Samvaratthena sølavisuddhi virægo. Avikkhepatthena cittavisuddhi virægo: Dassanatthena di¥¥hivisuddhi virægo.

            (79) PsC. (II, 213) Sølavisuddhø–ti sammævæcækammantæjøvæ. Cittavisuddhø–ti sammæsa-mædhi. Di¥¥hivisuddhø–ti sammæ samædhi. Dii¥¥hivisuddi–ti sammædi¥¥hi–sa³kappæ.

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION

Rebuttal of Reply to Rejoinder I–IIX

By Sayædaw U Nyænuttara, Agga Mahæ Pa¤ðta

(myanmar)

ANSWER To No. 13

            The Ven. Kheminda states that the passage beginning with samædahaµ cittaµ in the Visuddhimagga is concerned only with samathayænika, not with suddhavipassanæyænika. I accept his view. The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw has never stated that this passage refers to vipassanæyænika. But nevertheless, “momentary unification of mind at the actual time of insight” contained in that passage is also concerned with that of vipassanæyænika, because momentary unification of mind attained by a samathayænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation is in essence the same as momentary unification of mind attained by a vipassanæyænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation.

            Verily it is so, because both of the momentary unification of mind attained by a samathayænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation and that attained by a vipassanæyænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation are kæmævcara bhævanæ samædhi. Here, both of the said samædhi, being attained in the course of vipassanæ contemplation, are not proper access concentration: they are only momentary concentration. If the Ven. Kheminda can appreciate this point, he will be able to appreciate that just as the samatha attained by a samathayænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation is called momentary concentration, the samædhi attained by a vipassanæyænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation if called momentary concentration.

            That such kæmævacara bhævanæ samædhi is called momentary concentration has been explained at length in the December, 1967, issue of World Buddhism, page 119, by quoting the relevant passages of the Sala Sutta, its Commenentary and Sub–Commentary. However, for the convenience of the Ven. Kheminda, a passage from the Sala Sutta Commentary may be restated here: “‘One–pointed’ means being one–pointed by momentary concentration. ‘Calmed down, of concentrated mind’ means being calmed down, of concentrated mind, by access, and fixed concentration.”

            Regarding the term kha¼ika samædhi, kha¼ika, unlike upacæra and appanæ samædhi, does not denote a length of time: it lasts only for a moment of contemplation. So the said term of kha¼ika has no special quality. Nevertheless this term is used not only for the samædhi attained in the course of vipassanæ contemplation. That this term is also used for the Buddha’s phalasamæpatti, on the ground of its momentary duration by the Commentators is shown thus in the Commentaries to Døgha and Saµyutta Nikæyas. “Did not the Buddha enter into phala–samæpatti from then backwards? Yes, he did. But that phala–samæpatti was momentary. Momentary samæpatti does away with feeling in its duration.” (Note 80)

            Again, the Ven. Kheminda states that momentary concentration is possible only to one who rises from jhæna and contemplates vipassanæ. By that statement, the Ven. Kheminda appears to say that mind can be stabilised only by that momentary concentration. Perhaps, he could not appreciate the spirit of the Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries showing the power of the vipassanæ momentary concentration. As a matter of fact, the said Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries show up the power of the momentary concentration attained by both samathayænika and vipassanæyænika in the course of vipassanæ contemplation. Paramatthamæñjþsæ states thus: “When it (momentary concentration) occurs uninterruptedly with its respective object in a single mode and is not overcome by opposition, it fixes the mind immovably, as if in absorption”. (Note 81)

            In this Sub–Commentary the words: “When it occurs uninterruptedly with the respective object in a single mode,” and the words: “is not overcome by opposition, it fixes the mind immovably, as if in absorption” should be specially noted. These words do not purport to show that, because one develops insight after rising from jhæna, one’s momentary concentration has the power that stabilizes the mind, as if in absorption. In fact, they show up that because momentary concentration occurs uninterruptedly with the respective object in a single mode and is not overcome by opposition, it has the same power as that of absorption or fixed concentration.

            When in the Buddhist scriptures a certain dhamma is explained clearly, any other dhamma having the same characteristics can be interpreted in the same manner. That this sort of interpretation is called lakkh¼æhæra is shown in Netti. “When a dhamma is explained all the dhammas having the same characteristics are to be regarded as explained in the same manner. This hæra is called lakka¼æhæra.” (Note 82)

            The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw explains the power of the momentary concentration in The Progress of Insight by this lakkha¼æhæra. I shall explain. The momentary concentration attained in the course of vipassanæ contemplation according to Ænæpænasatikathæ is directly shown in the Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries. In The Progress of Insight the power of the momentary concentration attained in the course of vipassanæ contemplation on Body and Mind according to Dhætumanasikærapabba etc, is explained and in this explanation the concentration directly shown in the Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries is shown likewise on account of both being vipassanæ contemplation.

            This explanation is made according to lakkha¼æhæra method and is in accord with the spirit of the relevant Commentaries and Sub–Commentaries. If this method is not employed or, in other words, if only direct statements are to be adhered to, even in Ænæpænasatikathæ, contemplations other than that prescribed by the passage beginning with samædahaµ cittaµ will not lead to development of a samædhi by which mind can be stabilised. As a matter of fact, it is not so. Vipassanæ samædhi attained by means of all the sixteen methods prescribed in Ænæpænasatikathæ can stabilise the mind. In the same way, vipassanæ samædhi attained by other methods prescribed in the Buddha’s teachings can also stabilise the mind. Therefore, the yogøs who contemplate by these other methods can achieve gradual progress of insight and attain maggaphalañæ¼a.

ANSWER To No. 14

            The Ven. Kheminda makes an unfair allegation, and that in a strong language, thus: “Purification of Mind is the proximate cause of insight, and without this proximate cause, can its results, i.e., Purification of View where insight begins, even come to be? It is a fictitious insight that this new teaching speaks of. What it does for the yogø who accepts its method is to halt his progress at the end of Purification of Virtue”. The Ven, Kheminda has made a groundless allegation, nay, an accusation because in The Progress of Insight (page 4) the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw has explained very clearly how Purification of Mind is attained. In this treatise, the Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw has explained Purification of Mind, Purification of View etc. not only in accordance with knowledge gathered from the scriptural books.

            As a matter of fact, the progress of insight achieved by thousands of yogøs who contemplated in accordance with this method is explained with careful reference to the scriptural books, emphasis being laid on the practice and the results. So the allegation that it is a fictitious insight is certainly unfair and unkind.

            The Ven. Kheminda states that the progress of the yogøs who accepts its method will halt at the end of Purification of Virtue. This statement amounts to holding back those who believe him from vipassanæ contemplation. In spite of his misleading statement, the yogøs who contemplate in accordance with the method as explained in The Progress of Insight are, in fact, contemplating in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching: “Leaning on virtue, established in virtue, you can cultivate the four stations of mindfullness”, and as the result of their effort and perfections (pæramita), they will surely realise magga–phalañæ¼a, being directly experienceable by the wise each in himself. The achievements of these yogøs have been accordingly incorporated in The Progress of Insight.

            Here, I wish to cite the instance of Upæli, a close disciple of Niga¼¥ha Nætaputta. Upæli went to the Buddha to discuss some points of controversy. After hearing a discourse of the Buddha, Upæli realised the Four Noble Truths and became a sotæpanna.

            Niga¼¥aha Næ¥aputta came to know about the conversion of Upæli. He did not believe but nevertheless sent his trusted disciple Døghatapassi to go and enquire at the house of Upæli. Døghatapassø came to tell him that it was true. Not believing yet, he went himself to Upæli’s house. Upæli received him but not with the same respect as before. He became enraged and used strong language against Upæli.

            He said: “You, householder, are you out of mind, you are idiotic .... You were enticed by the ‘enticing device’ of the recluse Gotama.” (Note 83)

            Upæli replied ....“Auspious, revered sir, is the ‘enticing device’. If my dear kith and kin could be enticed by the ‘enticing’, for long it would be for the welfare and happiness of my dear kith and kin. If all the nobles ... Brahma¼as ... merchants ... Workers, if the world with its devæs, its Mæras, its Brahmas, its recluses, its men could be enticed by this ‘enticing’, for long it would be for their welfare and happiness.” (see Middle Length Sayings II, pages 48 & 49) (Note 84).

            In the manner Upæli said to Næ¥aputta, the yogøs, who have successfully undergone a full course of contemplation in accordance with the method as explained in The Progress of Insight, would surely tell the Ven. Kheminda that the said method is right and is for the welfare and happiness of those who contemplate zealously in accordance with it.

            The Ven. Mahæsø Sayædaw has boldly stated as follows at the end of The Progress of Insight. “In the beginning it was mentioned that this treatise has been written for those who have already obtained distinctive results in their practice, others may perhaps read it with advantage, too.

            “Now these are my concluding good wishes for the latter type of readers: Just as a very delicious, appetizing, tasty and nutritious meal can be appreciated fully only by him who has himself eaten it, and not without partaking of it, in the same way, the whole series of developments of knowledge described here can be understood fully only by one who has himself seen it by direct experience, and not otherwise. So may all good people reach the stage of indubitable understanding of this whole series of knowledge–developments! May they also strive to attain it!”

            The Ven. Kheminda will be well advised to ponder these noble words.

NOTES

            (80) DC (II, 137), SC (III, 236) Kim pana bhægavæ ito pubbe phalasamæpattim na samæ-pajjatø-tø? Samæpajjati, sæ pana kha¼ika-samæpatti, kha¼ikasamæpatti ca antosomæpattiyaµ yeva vedanæµ vikkhambheti.

            (81) Vism C (I, 342) sopi hi ærammane nirantaramekaka¼nena pavattamæno pa¥i-pakkhena anabhibhþto appito viya cittaµ nicealaµ ¥hapeti.

            (82) Netti (3) Vuttamhi ekadhamme, ye dhammæ ekalakkha¼æke-ci; vuttæ bhavanti sabbe, so hæro lakkha¼o næma.

            (83) M. (II, 46) Ummatto’si tvaµ gahapati, datto’si tvaµ gahæpati ... Avatto’si kho tvaµ gahapati sama¼ena gotamena æva¥¥aniyæ-ti.

            (84) M. (II, 46) Bhaddikæ bhante ævattani mæyæ, kalyæ¼ø bhante ævattanø. Piyæ me bhante ñæti-sæ¹ohitæ imæya æva¥¥aniyæ ævatteyyum, piyænaui pi me assañætisalohitænaµ døgharattaµ hitæpa sukæya. Sabbe ce-pi bhante khatiyæ .... brahama¼æ .... vessæ .... suddæ imæya æva¥¥aniyæ æva¥¥eyum, sabbesænaµ pissa suddænaµ døgharattaµ hitæya sukhæya. Sadevakoce-pi bhante loko samærako sabrahmako sasama¼a-brahma¼ø pajæ sadevamunussæ imæyæ æva¥¥aniyæ æva¥¥eyum sadevakassa pi’ssa lokassa ..... sadeva-manussæya digharattaµ hitæya sukhæyæ-ti.