Two passages in AN 3.67 Kathāvatthusutta

I have been re-reading AN 3.67 and dissecting its parts and there are two more questionmarks that I can’t seem to resolve, so I’m asking for help. I’ll get right to it:

  1. In the ‘introduction’ of the sutta, we read:

“There are, mendicants, these three topics of discussion. What three? You might discuss the past: ‘That is how it was in the past.’ You might discuss the future: ‘That is how it will be in the future.’ Or you might discuss the present: ‘This is how it is at present.’

I just can’t get my head around this. What’s the point of this passage? Is this some kind of formula that situates the teaching in a larger time frame? I mean you can talk about things that happened in the past, that take place in the present and how they will be in the future. It is kind of stating the obvious, so I thought it might have a further bearing that I’m not aware of. Especially since they are being referred to as “topics of discussions” → hence the sutta title. But the sutta doesn’t talk about that after the end of this introductory passage. It really is about assessing if somebody’s fit to hold a discussion by showing the qualities of the interlocutor or respectively the interlocutor’s faults.

  1. My second concern is about the following passage. It talks about the liberation of the mind by not grasping. I’ll include the Pali:

Someone who has what’s required directly knows one thing, completely understands one thing, gives up one thing, and realizes one thing—
So saupaniso samāno abhijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ, parijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ, pajahati ekaṁ dhammaṁ, sacchikaroti ekaṁ dhammaṁ.

And if you have done that

then they experience complete freedom.
sammāvimuttiṁ phusati.

I was wondering about the ‘one thing’ or ekaṁ dhammaṁ-part.
The Pali Canon Version that I frequently use (in addition to the SC) also speaks of “one thing” and it includes snippets of the commentary explaining this passage.

In the snippet it says that ‘the first one thing’ abhijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ refers to the fourth Noble truth, the Noble Eightfold path;
the second ‘one thing’ parijānāti ekaṁ dhammaṁ refers to seeing/understanding suffering as in the first Noble Truth;
the third ‘one thing’ pajahati ekaṁ dhammaṁ refers to ‘getting over’/giving up desire (I think it’s tanha but it doesn’t give the Pali word) as in the Second Noble Truth
and that the fourth ‘one thing’ sacchikaroti ekaṁ dhammaṁ refers to realizing Nibbana as in the third Noble Truth.

It makes sense that this passage is referring to the Noble Truths and the Path as liberation is the stated purpose of discussion in this context.

But still I was wondering if this is truly the case, i.e. if this is the ‘stadard interpretation’ (if there is one)?
Ven. Thanissaro btw translates the ekaṁ dhammaṁ-part as one quality. So it reads e.g. abandoning one quality. This sounds a bit odd to me even though ‘quality’ can mean “characteristic”.

So if anyone can shed light on these passages or give insights to the commentary on this sutta, I’d appreciate that very much! :pray: :blossom:

3 Likes

I defer to others to explain the nuances beyond my grasp, but thanks for bringing up this lovely sutta about the importance of proper ethics in discussions. :pray: :lotus:

2 Likes

I did a search for ‘AN3.67’ on the forum search it gave a couple of results. The first one an essay by Piya Tan. Search results for 'AN3.67' - Discuss & Discover

This is what he says in answer to your question, it’s on the beginning of the 2nd page.

1 Like

My German commentary also lists the noble truth explanation.

Let me however try a slightly different hermeneutic:

  • The “one thing” is Nibbana
  • Nibbana can only be discussed and described in so many ways, just as the Buddha does in the Suttas. Some questions can be answered straight, some require the means of a simile, and some need to be discarded because they make no sense. An Arahant may possibly recognize another Arahant by his immediate understanding of which are which (according to the subject matter).
  • The first paragraph would then essentially mean that just as there are just so many ways in which human affairs can be discussed (they are always temporal), there are just so many ways to teach Nibbana.
1 Like

Thanks to everyone! :sun_with_face:

In the essay by Piya Tan, the author says that all topics are time-bound. It makes sense that speaking of ‘topics’ in the past-present-future implicitly refers to the 5 hindrances that one encounters. I still wonder if this is some kind of forumula that is repeated in other suttas… Thanks for the essay anyway, it provides useful observtions.

As to rendering one thing as nibbana: Interesting take. It does make sense only the “giving up one thing - giving up nibbana” would be hard to reconcile.

Which commentary-edition are you using btw?