Anguttaranikaya 3.2.2.7: 7. Kathāvatthusuttavaṇṇanā

In the seventh [sutta]: "Topics of conversation" means grounds for conversation; the meaning is: the bases, the supports for talk. "A past period, bhikkhus": what is called a past period applies both to time and to the aggregates. The same method applies to the future and the present. Therein, speaking in this manner: "In the past, there was a Fully Enlightened One named Kassapa; his chief attendant was the King of Kāsi named Kikī; his lifespan was twenty thousand years," one is said to speak concerning the past. Speaking in this manner: "In the future, there will be a Buddha named Metteyya; his chief attendant will be a king named Saṅkha; his lifespan will be eighty thousand years," one is said to speak concerning the future. Speaking in this manner: "Presently, such and such a king is righteous," one is said to speak concerning the present.

"Through engagement in conversation": through the meeting of talk. "Fit to converse with": proper to speak with. "Unfit to converse with": not proper to speak with. In "a question to be answered categorically" and so forth: when asked, "Is the eye impermanent?", one should answer categorically, "Yes, it is impermanent." The same method applies to the ear and the rest. This is a question to be answered categorically. But when asked, "Is whatever is impermanent the eye?", one should answer after making an analysis: "Not only the eye; the ear is also impermanent, the nose is also impermanent." This is a question to be answered analytically. When asked, "As the eye is, so is the ear? As the ear is, so is the eye?", one should counter-question, "In what sense do you ask?" If he says, "I ask in the sense of seeing," one should answer, "Certainly not." If he says, "I ask in the sense of impermanence," one should answer, "Yes." This is a question to be answered by counter-questioning. But when asked, "Is the life-principle the same as the body?" and so forth, it should be set aside, saying, "This has not been declared by the Blessed One"; this question is not to be answered. This is a question to be set aside.

"He does not stand by what is possible and impossible": he does not stand by reason and unreason. Here, this is the method: an eternalist is able to refute an annihilationist through sound reason; the annihilationist, being refuted by him, says, "Do I proclaim annihilation?", and displays only an eternalist state, being unable to stand by his own thesis. Similarly, when an annihilationist is capable, the eternalist [wavers]; when a personalist is capable, the proponent of emptiness [wavers]; when a proponent of emptiness is capable, the personalist [wavers]—thus he is said not to stand by what is possible and impossible.

"He does not stand by a hypothesis": this is found both when asking a question and when answering a question. How? A certain person clears his throat, thinking, "I will ask a question"; told by the other, "You will ask such and such [a question]," knowing that it has been known, he says, "Not that; I will ask another." Even when asked a question, one clears his jaw, thinking, "I will answer the question"; told by the other, "You will answer such and such," knowing that it has been known, he says, "Not that; I will answer another." Thus he is said not to stand by a hypothesis.

"He does not stand by what was acknowledged": he does not stand by what was acknowledged, by what was admitted. How so? One person asks a question, and the other says to him, "You asked a pleasing question; where did you learn that?" Although having asked the question in the proper manner of asking, due to the other's statement he feels doubt: "Did I perhaps ask what was not a question?" Another, being asked a question, explains it; the other says to him, "You explained the question well; where did you learn it? When one explains a question, it should indeed be explained like this." Although having explained the question in the proper manner of explaining, due to the other's statement he feels doubt: "Did I perhaps explain what was not a question?"

"He does not stand by the procedure": he does not adhere to proper conduct; not knowing the customary duty, he asks in a place where one should not ask—this is the meaning. Indeed, when asked on the courtyard of a shrine, one should not explain this question; likewise on the road during the alms round while walking into the village for alms. Nor when seated in the dining hall, nor when seated having taken gruel or a meal, nor when seated having consumed it, nor at the time of going to the place for the day's rest. But when seated in the place for the day's rest, one should explain only to one who asks having asked permission; one should not explain to one who asks without having asked permission. Asking without knowing this customary duty, one is said not to stand by the procedure. "Such being the case, bhikkhus, a person is unfit for conversation": bhikkhus, when this and that reason are present, this person is rightly called unfit to converse with.

"He stands by possibilities and impossibilities": an eternalist is able by valid reasoning to refute an annihilationist; the annihilationist, even when being refuted by him, says, "Even if I am refuted by you a hundred times, I am still an annihilationist." By this method, the same approach should be applied to an eternalist, a personalist, an exponent of emptiness, and so on. Thus, he is said to stand by possibilities and impossibilities. "He stands by conjectures": when, clearing his throat [thinking], "I will ask a question," he is told, "You are going to ask such and such," he says, "Yes, I will ask that very thing." Also, when preparing his jaw [thinking], "I will explain a question," and he is told, "You are going to explain such and such," he says, "Yes, I will explain that very thing." Thus, he is said to stand by conjectures.

"He stands by what was acknowledged": having asked this question, when told, "You asked the question well; when one asks, it should indeed be asked like this," he accepts it and does not give rise to doubt. Having explained a question too, when told, "You explained the question well; when one explains, it should indeed be explained like this," he accepts it and does not give rise to doubt. "He stands by the procedure": having seated [a monk] in his house and given gruel, snacks, and so forth, while waiting until the meal is finished, seated in that interval he asks a question. Or having taken medicines such as ghee, the eight kinds of allowable drinks, cloths, robes, garlands, fragrances, and so on, having gone to the monastery and presented them, and having entered the place for the day's rest and asked permission, he asks a question. For asking having known the customary duty in this way, he is said to stand by the procedure. It is proper to explain a question to him.

“Shifts from one thing to another”: covers one thing with another word, or, when asked about one thing, speaks about another. “Leads the talk outside”: introducing irrelevant talk, he diverts the original conversation to the outside. In this regard, there is this story: monks gathered and said to a certain young monk, “Venerable, you have committed such-and-such an offense.” He said, “Venerable sirs, I went to Nāgadīpa.” “Venerable, we have no concern with your going to Nāgadīpa; rather, we are asking whether you committed an offense.” “Venerable sirs, having gone to Nāgadīpa, they eat fish.” “Venerable, there is no business with your eating fish; you have reportedly committed an offense.” He said, “Fish that was not well-cooked made me uncomfortable, venerable sirs.” “Venerable, there is no business with your comfort or discomfort; you have committed an offense.” “Venerable sirs, as long as I lived there, it was just uncomfortable for me.” In this way, by means of irrelevant talk, it should be known that he “leads the talk outside.”

“Overwhelms”: citing suttas from here and there, he smothers [the discussion]. Just like the elder Tepiṭaka Tissa. Formerly, the monks, having assembled in the courtyard of the Great Stūpa, after conducting Saṅgha business and giving advice to the monks, would engage in mutual discussion of questions. There, this elder, citing suttas from here and there across the three Piṭakas, would not allow even a single question to be concluded during that part of the day. “Crushes”: bringing forward an argument, he crushes [the other]. “Laughs aloud”: whether a question has been asked or answered by another, clapping his hands he laughs uproariously, whereby the other person doubts, “Did I ask what should not be asked? Did I say what should not be said?” “Seizes on a slip”: catches at a trivial slip of the mouth, and, whenever a syllable, word, or phrasing is mispronounced, he walks about complaining, “It should have been said like this!” “Having an upanisā”: having a basis, having a condition.

“One who lends an ear”: one who has applied his ear. “Directly knows one dhamma”: directly knows one wholesome dhamma, the noble path. “Fully understands one dhamma”: fully understands one dhamma, the truth of suffering, with full understanding by investigation. “Abandons one dhamma”: abandons, dispels, and eradicates one all-unwholesome dhamma. “Realizes one dhamma”: realizes, makes manifest, one dhamma, the fruition of arahantship or cessation itself. “Touches right release”: rightly, by reason, method, and cause, touches the release that is the fruition of arahantship with the contact of knowledge.

“For this purpose, monks, is discussion”: monks, the discussion shown by “because of engagement in discussion”—that is for this purpose; this is the ground, the foundation, for that discussion. This is the subject matter, namely, the release of the mind through non-clinging: thus the construction should be understood in all clauses. “For this purpose is deliberation”: that deliberation which takes place with a competent person among competent and incompetent persons—that too is just for this purpose. “For this purpose is the basis”: the basis stated in the words “one who lends an ear, having a basis”—that too is just for this purpose. “For this purpose is lending an ear”: the lending of an ear for that basis—that too is just for this purpose. “Through non-clinging”: not grasping through the four clingings. “Release of the mind”: the release that is the fruition of arahantship. For all this is for the sake of the fruition of arahantship; concluding the sutta and, with the following verses, crowning it, he said “Those who are contentious” and so on.

Therein, “contentious”: hostile through anger termed contention. “Converse”: they carry on a conversation. “Entrenched”: having become entrenched. “Arrogant”: thoroughly elevated with the pride of conceit. “Relying on ignoble qualities”: they speak ignoble conversation, having struck against virtue. For speech that assaults virtue is called ignoble speech, not noble speech; they speak that, is the meaning. “Seeking each other’s flaws”: searching for each other’s defects and faults. “Poorly spoken”: badly stated. “Slip”: a trivial slip of the mouth. “Bewilderment and defeat”: the bewilderment and defeat of one another through a trivial slip of the mouth. “Rejoice”: they are pleased. “Should not practice”: does not behave, does not speak. “Connected with what stands on Dhamma”: speech spoken by one standing on the Dhamma is both standing on Dhamma and connected with that Dhamma; hence, “connected with what stands on Dhamma.” “With an un-elated mind”: with a mind that is not excited. “Without rivalry”: being without rivalry, in the sense of the rivalry of competing with an equal. “Without violence”: being without violence, through the violences of lust, hatred, and delusion.

“Not jealous”: not feeling envy. “Should not disparage what is poorly spoken”: when something is badly expressed, he should not disparage it. “Should not learn fault-finding”: he should not learn fault-finding, which has the characteristic of claiming superior reasoning. “Nor grasp at a slip”: at a trivial slip of the mouth, he should not grasp, saying, “This is your fault!” “Should not overwhelm”: should not smother. “Should not crush”: citing a single argument, he should not crush [the other]. “Should not speak deceitful speech”: should not speak speech connected with falsehood and pretense. “For the sake of understanding”: for the sake of knowing. “For the sake of confidence”: for the sake of generating confidence. “Should deliberate without arrogance”: should not be exalted by the pride of conceit. For the wise do not speak being inflated with conceit; but rather, being completely un-inflated with conceit, one should deliberate, speak, and converse.