English
, from the jhāna that is the basis for supernormal knowledge," the meaning is construed as capable of being directed. Thus, the connection "he, with his mind thus concentrated, thus attained to imperturbability" should be understood in the second alternative, because of the removal of the hindrances and the transcending of initial application, etc., which is the function of the first jhāna, etc. This connection is not possible in the first alternative, because the word "thus" is prevented from being connected by the phrase "in 'pure,' etc." Therefore, it says, "pure by means of the purity of equanimity and mindfulness," etc. "Free from defilement" means the absence of factors of anger that arise due to desires, as in "Oh, if only I had committed an offense, and the bhikkhus would not know me" (M.N. 1.60), etc. And here, desire of the kind mentioned is also an obstacle to the attainment of the first jhāna, etc., since it is said, "deliberate lying, friends, is an obstructive phenomenon" (Mahāva. 134), how much more so are the factors of anger that arise from desire. Therefore, it is said, "evil desires that are hostile to the attainment of jhāna," etc. In some books, however, the reading "desires that are conducive to the attainment of jhāna" is seen; that is a scribal error. And in the commentary, what is written as its meaning, "Oh, if only the Teacher would question me alone and teach the Dhamma," is badly written. For anger, etc., which are mentioned in the Anaṅgaṇa Sutta (M.N. 1.57 ff.), are not conducive to the attainment of jhāna, and the teacher says, "they are not logically possible for one who has attained jhāna, because they are absent in him." That should be investigated. Here, it should be understood that the eightfold demonstration is made again and again with "he, with his mind thus concentrated," etc., in order to show the progressively higher distinctions of the three knowledges. And the progressively higher distinctions are the suffering of self in speech. is to be understood as revealing the suffering of others and its cessation. For the Blessed One, having seen his own endless suffering in transmigration through the knowledge of the recollection of past lives, and having seen the cessation of both through the knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings and the knowledge of the destruction of the defilements, teaches it. Or, by seeing his own suffering through the first, he reveals the abandonment of attachment to self. By seeing the suffering of others through the second, he reveals the abandonment of anger towards others. By seeing the noble path through the third, he reveals the abandonment of delusion. Thus, it is to be understood that the inclusion here of these two worldly supernormal knowledges is for the purpose of revealing various special qualities. If it is said that since past existence itself is a dwelling, it should not be said "in past existences"? No, because the use of the term "dwelling" is seen to be established even for a part of an existence. Although in the Pāli, the recollection of a whole existence, as in the saying "one existence, two existences," appears to be the recollection of past lives, it should not be seen that way. To show that the recollection of even a part of it is indeed the recollection of past lives, the locative case is used, and also to include places and so on. By the word "etc." in "the recollection of cut-off tree stumps, etc.," the inclusion of undelimited world-systems, islands, cities, villages, etc., should be understood. In the commentary, however, it is said, "The supramundane virtues of those cut-off tree stumps were not known by the Buddha during his Bodhisatta period." By implication, it follows that the worldly ones were known, which seems to agree with the statement "slanderers of the noble ones" in the context of the divine eye knowledge. For it is not so for one who does not see the noble ones. Why is recollection mentioned here? Is this not the context of knowledge? Because it arises in the beginner through mindfulness, and because mindfulness has a special connection with past phenomena. For it is said, "I recollect." "He knows in present things, He recollects in past things; He knows in future things, He recollects through aspiration." A verse by Acariya Kumārita is also mentioned. Therein, when lust is excessive, there is a fire-cycle. When hatred is excessive, there is a water-cycle. When delusion is excessive, there is a wind-cycle. Meaning. Some say: "In hatred, it is a fiery dissolution; in lust, a watery dissolution; in delusion, a windy dissolution." Since the thought or word "in that other world" is determined by existence, therefore it is said "or in existence," and so on. By the two phrases "of such a name, of such a clan," it indicates the sphere of dwelling, which is a designation rooted in the internal and external. One who eats fallen fruit, one who feeds on spontaneously fallen fruit. Before the aspiration that "my lifespan will extend to eighty-four thousand aeons." For one who is returning, the recollection, the knowledge of past lives, does not occur. It is said in the commentary that "this is a manifestation of the power of those who have attained the knowledge of past lives." Here, in the first interpretation of "in that other world," recollection is spoken of as a lion's leap, and indeed in forward order. They also write "in reverse order," which is difficult to understand. To show the lion's leap, "in many tens of thousands of aeons," and so on, is said. Just as the scripture, by an example common to practice, showing the commonality of results, generates respect in the brahmin, it refutes the statement that "he exalts himself alone." It directs him to the thought that had previously arisen in him: "Indeed, it is good to see such Arahants." By the phrase "the first breaking forth," it shows the multi-layered nature of the egg-shell of ignorance, and thereby indicates the non-breaking forth by means of the eightfold mastery, and so on. The exposition on past lives is concluded. Exposition on the knowledge of the divine eye 13. "For the knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings" is said by way of figurative expression of the result. For this knowledge of the divine eye, being an object of form, has a limited, present, internal, and external object. It does not make passing away or rebirth its object. Therefore, it should be understood that this is said by way of figurative expression of the result, like the statement "I discern beings according to their karma" (Pārā. 13). Being based on the divine abiding, it is divine by way of figurative expression of the cause. By this, however, some teachers who say "the wholesome and unwholesome eye is the divine eye of the sense-sphere" are refuted. The fourth jhana Ignorance is indeed intended here. Regarding "being greatly luminous" and "being greatly moving," it is said "according to the science of words." Thus, the sequence of arising and the nature of the eleven defilements should be understood. The Great Being, having increased his light, and seeing various forms with his divine eye, doubt arose: "What indeed is this?" That defilement, in the Discourse on Defilements, is stated thus: "And indeed, a basis for doubt arose in my concentration; when concentration ceased, the light vanished and the sight of forms." Then, as he thought: "Doubt arises in me when I see forms; now I will not pay attention to anything," non-attention arose. Then, as he paid no attention to anything, sloth and torpor arose. Then, to abandon that, having increased his light and seeing forms, as he saw ogres and demons in the Himalayas and elsewhere, terror arose. Then, to abandon that, as he thought: "The fear I have seen does not exist when naturally observed; what fear could there be in the unseen?" elation arose. In the gloss, however, it is said: "Elation by the sight of divine forms." The teacher says: "That is ill-expressed, as its meaning is established later by the mention of covetousness." Then, to abandon terror, as he loosened his effort, thinking: "I have firmly grasped effort, by that this elation has arisen in me," bodily unwieldiness, bodily weariness, bodily laziness arose. Then, as he abandoned that, over-exerted effort arose. Seeing the fault in that, under-exerted effort arose. Then, abandoning that, with evenly flowing effort, from the fear of terror, abandoning the Himalayan and other places, increasing his light towards the divine realms, as he saw the assembly of gods, covetousness, which is craving, arose. Then, thinking: "Covetousness has arisen in me when I paid attention to a single type of form; therefore, now I will pay attention to various forms," at times towards the divine realms, at times towards the human realms... By increasing the outward light, and attending to various forms, a perception of diversity arose. Then, thinking, "As I attend to various forms, a perception of diversity has arisen for me. Therefore, now, abandoning the grasp of pleasant signs, due to the fear of covetousness and so forth, I will attend to only one type of form," as he did so, the forms became clearly discerned, even though the defilement was abandoned, because it was not yet fully established. "Indeed, I know the light, but I do not see the forms," and so on, arose. Its meaning is: When I attend only to the preliminary light, then I perceive the light, but I do not see forms with the divine eye. And at the time of seeing forms, I do not know the light. Why was this said? Is it not that this is not a state of defilement? It is not merely the abandonment of defilements that should be done here, by which this becomes purified. It is to show that there is something else to be done beyond that. In "doubt is a defilement of the mind," and so on, some say, "I abandoned these states as defilements by seeing their danger,