English
he grasps the annihilationist view, thinking, "This being is annihilated right here, and so are others." "He grasps the view of the appearance of new beings" the one who has attained jhana grasps it as if it were spontaneously arisen. For just as he, having passed away from the non-percipient beings and reborn here, being a renunciant, attains supernormal knowledge Having remembered past lives, and seeing only the arising here, being unable to remember arising in the non-percipient realm beyond that, he thinks: "I arose by chance, I was not before, but now, not having been, I have become a being, and other beings are just like that too." Thus he grasps the view of the spontaneous appearance of new beings. In the same way, seeing only the arising and not seeing the passing away, he grasps the view of the spontaneous appearance of new beings. Now, showing another reason for purity, he says: "Or from the absence of the eleven defilements," and so on. As it is said, he points to the Pāli passage from the Upakkilesa Sutta. There, indeed, having addressed these three young men of good family, Anuruddha, Nandiya, and Kimbila, by the one who taught the Dhamma, to show: "Anuruddhas, why would you not be troubled by these? I too was formerly troubled by these eleven defilements –" "Indeed, Anuruddhas, I too, before my full enlightenment, while still an unenlightened Bodhisatta, perceived a light and the sight of forms. But that light and the sight of forms quickly disappeared from me. Then, Anuruddhas, it occurred to me: 'What, indeed, is the cause, what is the reason, by which that light and the sight of forms disappear from me?' Then, Anuruddhas, it occurred to me: 'Doubt, indeed, arose in me. And because of doubt, my concentration wavered. When concentration wavered, the light disappeared and the sight of forms. So I will act in such a way that doubt will not arise in me again.' " "Then, Anuruddhas, I, dwelling heedful, ardent, and resolute, perceived a light and the sight of forms. But that light and the sight of forms quickly disappeared from me. Then, Anuruddhas, it occurred to me: 'What, indeed, is the cause, what is the reason, by which that light and the sight of forms disappear from me?' Then, Anuruddhas, it occurred to me: 'Inattention, indeed, arose in me. And because of inattention, my concentration wavered. When concentration..." The bright light disappears, and the sight of forms. So I will act so that doubt does not arise in me again, nor inattention. Beginning with the teaching (M.N. 3.241), this was said: "So I, Anuruddha, knowing that doubt is an defilement of the mind," and so on. There (M.N. Commentary 3.241), "doubt" means the doubt that arose in the Great Being, who, having increased his light and seeing various forms with his divine eye, thought, "What is this?" But the forms appeared to me through attention, and doubt arises when seeing forms. Therefore, now I will not pay attention to anything, and he becomes silent. Referring to that state of silence, it is said, "inattention." "Sloth and torpor" is the sloth and torpor that arose in one who was not paying attention to anything. For one in such a state, due to the absence of active attention, sloth and torpor arise. "Terror" is the terror that arose in him, who, having dispelled sloth and torpor, and having increased his light towards the Himalayas through his established attention, saw ogres, rakshasas, pythons, and so on. "Elation" is the elation that arose in him, relying on his skill in self-reflection, as he thought, "The fear I saw is not seen when observed with ordinary eye-consciousness; what kind of fear is this, imagined to be like the unseen?" thus dispelling fear. "Restlessness" is bodily sluggishness. "I exerted strong effort to calm sloth, torpor, and terror. Due to that, a strong, house-bound joy, which defiles mental concentration, called elation, arose in me." For one who slackens effort, bodily restlessness, bodily weariness, and bodily sluggishness arose. "Over-exerted effort" is the over-exerted effort that arose when he again exerted effort, thinking, "Restlessness arose when I slackened my effort." "Under-exerted effort" is when he again exerted effort, thinking, "This happened when I exerted my effort." That which arises from relaxing, energy that is too slack. "Abhijappā" is craving that arose when, having increased the light towards the deva world, one saw the assembly of devas. Indeed, it longs "May it be thus for me!" by way of persistent clinging, thus it is "abhijappā," it is craving. "Nānattasaññā" (perception of diversity) is when one thinks: "While attending to a single kind of form, craving arose in me; I will attend to various kinds of forms." Then, at times towards the deva world, at times towards the human world, having increased (the light), while attending to various kinds of forms, the perception of diversity arose. Perception in diversity, in various natures, is the perception of diversity. "Atinijjhāyitattaṃ" (excessive contemplation) is when one thinks: "While attending to various kinds of forms, the perception of diversity arose in me; I will attend to a single kind of form, be it desirable or undesirable." While attending thus, the excessive contemplation of forms arose. To contemplate, to scrutinize, making it exceedingly superior, is excessive contemplation. "Obhāsa" is the light arisen from preliminary practice. "And I do not see forms" means: due to being intent on attending to the light of preliminary practice, I do not see forms with the divine eye. "Indeed, I do see forms" means: in the place pervaded by that light of preliminary practice, I see the forms that are objects of the divine eye. "Thus, and so on" by the word "and so on" (refers to the following passage): "Throughout the night, throughout the day, throughout day and night, to me, Anuruddha, this occurred: 'What, indeed, is the cause, what is the condition, that I perceive the light, but do not see forms? I see forms, but do not perceive the light, throughout the night, throughout the day, throughout day and night?' To me, Anuruddha, this occurred: 'Indeed, at that time when I, not attending to the sign of forms, attend to the sign of light, indeed, at that time I perceive the light, but do not see forms. But at that time when I, not attending to the sign of light, attend to the sign of forms, indeed, at that time I see forms, but do not perceive the light." "I (see) only at night, only by day, only by night and day" (M.N. 3.243) – Such Pāli passages are included. This, belonging to humans, is human; a visible object within the range of humans. But the seeing of other kinds of forms, such as divine, beyond-the-wall, subtle, etc., is beyond human. Such a thing, indeed, is said to be beyond human range. Thus it is said: "by seeing forms, having gone beyond human range." Here, "human range" means a place to be approached by humans. The meaning is an object normally to be grasped by the eye-door. Having thus shown it by way of the object, now to show it by way of the subject, "or human" etc. is said. Even there, the transcending of the physical eye should be understood as the transcending of its function. "By the divine eye" means that by the divine eye-knowledge, some form cannot be seen due to its extreme transience and extreme subtlety. Moreover, the visible object for the divine eye is present, and it is a pre-arisen condition. And without advertence and preparation, there is no occurrence of the exalted (consciousness). Nor can a form that is just arising be an object condition, nor one that is just dissolving. Therefore, it is well said that form at the moment of death and rebirth cannot be seen by the divine eye. If divine eye-knowledge is only an object of form, then why is it said, "I see beings"? It is said thus mostly because of seeing forms belonging to the continuum of beings. Or they say it is said by way of conventional speech, due to the fact of grasping beings. "They are passing away" is the intended meaning, thus the connection. "Such a form" means not endowed with the moment of death and rebirth. Action based on delusion is low and has low results. Thus it is said: "because it is connected with the outflow of delusion." And the basis of delusion should be understood as the prevalence of the occurrence of delusion in the prior part of wholesome action. And wholesome action defiled by that prevalence of delusion produces only low birth, etc. Thus low birth, etc., are the outflow results of delusion. "ānīti" means, he says, "of those inferior in birth, family, possessions," etc. 'Hīḷita' means censured. 'Ohīḷita' means especially censured. 'Uññāta' means known as inferior. 'Avaññāta' means especially known as inferior. Here, in 'amohanissandayuttattā' (endowed with the result of non-delusion), non-delusion is spoken of as occurring conjoined and as a prior condition, and by that it shows those with a triple-rooted rebirth-linking. 'Tabbiparīta' means the opposite of that state of being censured, etc., i.e., uncensured, not especially censured, not known as inferior, not especially known as inferior, esteemed. This is the meaning. 'Suvaṇṇa' means of beautiful complexion. 'Dubbaṇṇa' means of unbeautiful complexion. This beauty and ugliness, respectively, arise from the non-hatred and hatred as supporting conditions for kamma, thus it says "endowed with the result of non-hatred," etc. And the non-hatred as a supporting condition for kamma should be understood as occurring in a continuum imbued with loving-kindness, etc. 'Abhirūpa' (beautiful form) and 'virūpa' (ugly form) are spoken of in terms of bodily shape. Indeed, the word 'vaṇṇa' (complexion) can also mean shape, as in "having created a great elephant-shape," etc. (SN 1.138). However, the meaning mentioned first was spoken of in terms of complexion. Those who have gone to a good destination are 'sugata',