SUTTA 136

[^1226]: MA says that Potaliputta did not actually hear this personally from the Buddha, but had heard a report that these statements were made by the Buddha. The former is a distorted version of the Buddha's declaration at MN 56.5 that mental action is the most reprehensible of the three types of deeds for the performance of evil action. The latter derives from the Buddha's discussion of the cessation of perception in the Potṭhapāda Sutta (DN 9). MA glosses the word "vain" by "fruitless."

[^1227]: This statement is made by the Buddha at SN 36:11/ iv.216, with reference to the suffering inherent in all formations by reason of their impermanence. Though the statement itself is true, Samiddhi seems to have misinterpreted it to mean that all feeling is felt as suffering, which is patently false.

[^1228]: MA: This section is not the expounding of the Tathāgata's knowledge of the great exposition of action, but the setting up of the outline for the purpose of presenting that exposition.

[^1229]: MA: This too is not the expounding of the knowledge of the great exposition of action, but is still the setting up of the outline. The purpose here is to show what can be accepted and what should be rejected in the claims of the outside recluses and brahmins. Briefly put, the propositions they put forth reporting their direct observations can be accepted, but the generalisations they derive from those observations must be rejected.

[^1230]: Here begins the expounding of the knowledge of the great exposition of action.

[^1231]: MA: The person who was seen with the divine eye killing living beings, etc., is reborn in hell because of another evil deed he had done earlier than the deed of killing, etc., or because of an evil deed he did afterwards, or because of a wrong view he accepted at the time of

death. Although the Pali seems to be saying that he was necessarily reborn in hell on account of some action other than the one he was seen performing, this should not be understood as an apodictic pronouncement but only as a statement of possibility. That is, while it may be true that he was reborn in hell because of the evil action he was seen performing, it is also possible that he was reborn there because of some other evil action he did earlier or later or because of wrong view.

[^1232]: This statement shows that even if his evil kamma does not generate the mode of rebirth, it will still mature for him in some other way either in this life, in the next life, or in some more distant future life.

[^1233]: In this case the heavenly rebirth must be due to some action other than the one he was seen performing, since an evil action cannot produce a fortunate mode of rebirth.

[^1234]: MA: The first is illustrated by the person who kills living beings and is reborn in hell: his action is incapable (of good result) because it is unwholesome, and it appears incapable because, since he is reborn in hell, it seems to be the cause for his rebirth there. The second is illustrated by the person who kills living beings and is reborn in heaven: his action is incapable (of good result) because it is unwholesome, yet it appears capable because he is reborn in heaven; thus to the outside recluses and brahmins it seems to be the cause for his rebirth in heav- en. The remaining two terms should be understood along the same lines, with appropriate changes.