English
to be not co-nascent with the perceptions, etc., associated with them, or to arise without making the perceptions, etc., associated with them an object. Even so, however, since these two feelings alone, being agreeable, satisfying, and pleasant, are primary among the remaining associated phenomena for the arising of the underlying tendency of sensual lust in the sense of enjoyment, therefore it was said, "in two feelings, here the underlying tendency of sensual lust lies dormant," for when something should be made known in a coarse way, one makes known the pleasant. Now, when this one lies dormant by way of object, it lies dormant not only in these two feelings and in the phenomena associated with the feelings, but also in agreeable forms, etc. It lies dormant. And this was said in the Vibhanga treatise: "Whatever is beloved and pleasing in the world, there the latent tendency to sensual lust lies dormant." In this treatise too, in the reverse order of the latent tendencies, it is said: "Where the latent tendency to sensual lust does not lie dormant, there the latent tendency to views does not lie dormant?" "In painful feeling, in the form realm, in the formless realm, there the latent tendency to sensual lust does not lie dormant, but there the latent tendency to views does not lie dormant. In the unincluded, there the latent tendency to sensual lust does not lie dormant, and the latent tendency to views does not lie dormant." Here, because it is said that it does not lie dormant in painful feeling and in the form realm etc., it is said that in associated states, in painful feeling, and in the states pertaining to the form and formless realms, except for the nine supramundane states, it lies dormant in the remaining forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects. Why is this not said here? Because they are not coarse. Because only feelings are coarse in the manner stated below, but these are not coarse, it is not said that it lies dormant in these forms etc., but it is understood in meaning. Therefore, it should be understood that the latent tendency to sensual lust lies dormant even in these. The Teacher does not say everything everywhere. But according to the capacity of those to be taught, whatever is understood is said somewhere, and somewhere it is not said. Thus, having asked somewhere whether the latent tendency to views lies dormant, "In all states included in self-identification, there the latent tendency to views lies dormant," whatever is understood, all that is said. In another place, when answering, "In the form realm, in the formless realm, there the latent tendency to doubt, the latent tendency to conceit, and the latent tendency to views lie dormant; in the sense realm, in the two feelings, there the latent tendency to doubt, the latent tendency to sensual lust, the latent tendency to conceit, and the latent tendency to views lie dormant; in painful feeling, there the latent tendency to doubt, the latent tendency to aversion, the latent tendency to views, and the latent tendency to ignorance lie dormant," without saying all that is understood, the three feeli The name was stated. But the immaterial states associated with feeling, and all form, were not stated. Although not stated, the underlying tendency to views still underlies here. Just so, although a visible object, etc., that is desired is not stated here, the underlying tendency to sensual lust still underlies here. Thus, the place where the underlying tendency to sensual lust underlies should be understood. But for the underlying tendency to aversion, because of the statement "in painful feeling," two mental painful feelings and the painful feeling associated with body-consciousness, thus three feelings, are the place where it underlies. But this mental painful feeling underlies in two ways: by way of co-arising and by way of object. But in the remaining painful feeling, it underlies only by way of object. And while underlying in those feelings, it also underlies in the aggregates of perception, etc., associated with them. For the perception, etc., are co-arisen with whatever feeling it is co-arisen with. And whatever feeling it makes an object, it also makes the associated perceptions, etc., an object. Even so, because painful feeling itself, being experienced as unpleasant and painful, is more prominent in the arising of the underlying tendency to aversion due to its lack of satisfaction than the other associated states; therefore, it is said, "in painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion underlies here," for what should be understood in a gross way should be made understandable. But surely, while underlying by way of object, it underlies not only in painful feeling and the states associated with it, but also in undesirable forms, etc.? And this was stated in the Vibhaṅga treatise (Vibha. 816): "Whatever form in the world is unpleasant, is unsatisfying, in this, the underlying tendency to aversion underlies in beings." And in this treatise, in the reverse order of the section on underlying tendencies, it was said: "In the two feelings of the sense-sphere, the underlying tendency to aversion does not underlie here, but the underlying tendency to sensual lust does not not underlie there. In the form-sphere and the formless-sphere, which are not pervaded, the underlying tendency to aversion also does not underlie here, and the underlying tendency to sensual lust also does not underlie." Here, in the two sense-sphere feelings and form And because it is said that it does not lie dormant in the elements, it is said that associated states, two feelings, and in the realms, the form and formless realms, nine states, excepting the supramundane states, it lies dormant in the remaining forms and so on. Why is that not said here? Because they are not coarse. For, as said below, only painful feeling is coarse, but these are not coarse, so it is not said that it lies dormant in these forms and so on. But it is obtained in meaning, therefore it should be understood that the aversion latent tendency lies dormant even in these. But are the other two feelings not objects of aversion, or objects of repulsion? No, they are not. For one who has declined from jhāna, through remorse, associated states, that feeling, arouses displeasure. And remembering the change of an object of delight that has been obtained, or the non-obtaining of one not obtained, displeasure arises. But that is merely displeasure, not the aversion latent tendency. For the aversion latent tendency is a defilement that has arisen powerfully, in an undesirable object, through being repelled, therefore, although aversion arises here together with displeasure, because it does not perform its function of aversion, it is not the aversion latent tendency, it goes to non-usage. Just as, although ill-will arises together with the volition of taking life, it is not called mental action, it goes to non-usage, so it is not the aversion latent tendency, it goes to non-usage. And it was said with reference to displeasure connected with an object of delight, or even with renunciation, "By that he abandons aversion, the aversion latent tendency does not lie dormant there" (M. i. 465). Thus, the place where the aversion latent tendency lies dormant should be understood. But for the conceit latent tendency, because of the statement "in the two feelings in the sense sphere" and so on, these three are the place where it lies dormant: the two sense-sphere feelings, and the form and formless realms. In the case of unwholesome feelings, its co-nascent latent tendency should be understood like that of the sense-desire latent tendency. But among associated states, all It clings by way of object to the pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings in the desire realm, and in the form and formless realms. But in the reverse order of the exposition of clinging, "When not overwhelmed by painful feeling, here the clinging to sensual desire does not cling, nor does the clinging to conceit cling," except for painful feeling and the ninefold supramundane Dhamma, in the remaining form and formless states, this clinging does indeed cling. Thus, the location of the clinging to conceit should be understood. But the clinging to views and the clinging to doubt do not cling only in the supramundane Dhammas. But in all the three planes, they do indeed cling. Therefore, it was said, "In all states included in self-identity, here the clinging to views clings, here the clinging to doubt clings." Therein, "in all states included in self-identity" means in all states included in self-identity in the sense of being dependent on the round of existence. Therein, these cling by way of co-arisen clinging in five thought-moments. Or, those five thought-moments, or other states of the three planes, cling by way of object-clinging at the time of occurrence by way of object. Thus, the location of the clinging to views and the clinging to doubt should be understood. But although the clinging to existence-desire arises in the four thoughts dissociated from views, it should be said that it clings "in the two feelings in the desire realm" by way of co-arisen clinging. But although this arises in the desire realm together with two feelings, it obtains only the states of the form and formless realms. It does not make a single state included in the desire realm an object, therefore, having made a rule by way of object-clinging, it was said, "In the form realm, in the formless realm, here the clinging to existence-desire clings." Moreover, desire is twofold, namely, sensual desire and existence-desire. Therein, it was said that sensual desire clings in the two feelings in the desire realm. But if existence-desire were spoken of in this way, like sensual desire, the teaching would seem confused with sensual desire, the defilement of desire.