Dilemma the Sixty-ThirdThe Faults Of the Arahat
Khīṇāsavasatisammosapañha (Mil 6.2 3)
‘Venerable Nāgasena, can an Arahat be thoughtless ?’
‘The Arahats, O king, have put thoughtlessness far from them. They are never inadvertent.’
‘But can an Arahat be guilty of an offence?’
‘Yes, O king.’
‘In what respect?’
‘In the construction of his cell, or in his intercourse (with the other sex), or in imagining the wrong time (for the midday meal) to be the right time, or when he has been invited (to a meal) forgetting the invitation, or in taking to be “left over “ food which has not been left over.’
‘But, venerable Nāgasena, your people say:
“Those who commit offences do so from one of two reasons, either out of carelessness or out of ignorance.”
‘Now, is the Arahat careless that he commits offences?’
‘No, O king.’
‘Then if the Arahat commits offences, and yet is not careless, he must be capable of thoughtlessness.’
‘He is not capable of thoughtlessness, and yet the Arahat may be guilty of offences.’
‘Convince me then by a reason. What is the reason of this?’
‘There are two kinds of sins, O king—those which are a breach of the ordinary moral law, and those which are a breach of the Rules (of the Order). And what is a breach of the ordinary moral law? the ten modes of evil action (killing, theft, unchastity, lying, slander, harsh language, frivolous talk, covetousness, malice, and false doctrine). These things are against the moral law. And what is a breach of the Rules? Whatever is held in the world as unfitting and improper for Samanas, but is not wrong for laymen—things concerning which the Blessed One laid down rules for his disciples, not to be transgressed by them their lives long. Eating after sunturn, O king, is not wrong to those in the world, but is wrong to those in the religion (the Order) of the Conquerors. Doing injury to trees and shrubs is no offence in the eyes of the world, but it is wrong in the religion. The habit of sporting in the water is no offence to a layman, but it is wrong in the religion. And many other things of a similar kind, O king, are right in the world, but wrong in the religion of the Conquerors. This is what I mean by a breach of the Rules. Now the Arahat (he in whom the Great Evils are destroyed) is incapable of sinning against whatever is moral law, but he may unawares be guilty of an offence against the rules of the Order. It is not within the province of every Arahat to know everything, nor indeed in his power. He may be ignorant of the personal or family name of some woman or some man. He may be ignorant of some road over the earth. But every Arahat would know about emancipation, and the Arahat gifted with the six modes of transcendental knowledge would know what lies within their scope, and an omniscient Tathāgata, O king, would know all things.’
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’
Here ends the dilemma as to the faults of the Arahat.
‘The Arahats, O king, have put thoughtlessness far from them. They are never inadvertent.’
‘But can an Arahat be guilty of an offence?’
‘Yes, O king.’
‘In what respect?’
‘In the construction of his cell, or in his intercourse (with the other sex), or in imagining the wrong time (for the midday meal) to be the right time, or when he has been invited (to a meal) forgetting the invitation, or in taking to be “left over “ food which has not been left over.’
‘But, venerable Nāgasena, your people say:
“Those who commit offences do so from one of two reasons, either out of carelessness or out of ignorance.”
‘Now, is the Arahat careless that he commits offences?’
‘No, O king.’
‘Then if the Arahat commits offences, and yet is not careless, he must be capable of thoughtlessness.’
‘He is not capable of thoughtlessness, and yet the Arahat may be guilty of offences.’
‘Convince me then by a reason. What is the reason of this?’
‘There are two kinds of sins, O king—those which are a breach of the ordinary moral law, and those which are a breach of the Rules (of the Order). And what is a breach of the ordinary moral law? the ten modes of evil action (killing, theft, unchastity, lying, slander, harsh language, frivolous talk, covetousness, malice, and false doctrine). These things are against the moral law. And what is a breach of the Rules? Whatever is held in the world as unfitting and improper for Samanas, but is not wrong for laymen—things concerning which the Blessed One laid down rules for his disciples, not to be transgressed by them their lives long. Eating after sunturn, O king, is not wrong to those in the world, but is wrong to those in the religion (the Order) of the Conquerors. Doing injury to trees and shrubs is no offence in the eyes of the world, but it is wrong in the religion. The habit of sporting in the water is no offence to a layman, but it is wrong in the religion. And many other things of a similar kind, O king, are right in the world, but wrong in the religion of the Conquerors. This is what I mean by a breach of the Rules. Now the Arahat (he in whom the Great Evils are destroyed) is incapable of sinning against whatever is moral law, but he may unawares be guilty of an offence against the rules of the Order. It is not within the province of every Arahat to know everything, nor indeed in his power. He may be ignorant of the personal or family name of some woman or some man. He may be ignorant of some road over the earth. But every Arahat would know about emancipation, and the Arahat gifted with the six modes of transcendental knowledge would know what lies within their scope, and an omniscient Tathāgata, O king, would know all things.’
‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’
Here ends the dilemma as to the faults of the Arahat.
Kritik dan saran,hubungi : cs@sariputta.com
