English
due to two kinds of kāma and arūpa for each, are shown. But from one kind of unhappy-destiny death, two kinds of unhappy-destiny rebirths are not shown. To show that, it says, "For one abiding in an unhappy destiny," and so on. However, as stated – Of two, two, and five kinds, and also five, eight, and two kinds; All twenty-four are these rebirths. "Because of having performed wholesome kāma-realm kamma," and so on, the nature of kamma-condition in different moments is shown as described. So, showing only the nature of decisive-support condition, it says, "This has been said," and so on. "Together with," and so on, means together with mixed consciousness. "At least two or three decads arise" is said in terms of those in the womb. Elsewhere, indeed, many kalāpas arise together. Even in the Brahma-existence, many gaāvuta-sized, many When these kalāpas arise together, More than thirty rūpas are there. Smell, taste, and nutriment are excluded, Even though eye-basis, ear-basis, Heart-basis septads, And life-nonad are many. In the Commentary, however, There too, the arising is stated Of eye-basis, ear-basis, heart-basis decads, And the life-nonad. But in the Pāli, it is said: "At the moment of rebirth In the rūpa-sphere, Excluding non-percipient devas, Five sense-bases appear, Five elements appear." And also: "In the rūpa-sphere, Six sense-bases, nine elements." This is said to show The existing sense-bases and elements there, In a comprehensive way. In the Kathāvatthu, The existence of smell-basis and taste-basis there Is denied, like nose-basis and so on. "Is there a nose-basis there? Yes. Is there a smell-basis there? It should not be said so," and so on (Kathā. 519). Nor can the existence of smell and taste Be stated there as non-bases, Like earth-element etc. are not touch-bases. For there is no nature of smell and taste Distinct from its own nature of smell and taste, Just as there is no nature of earth etc. Distinct from its touchable nature. If they are called sense-bases Because they are not causes for nose-contact etc., Then there is no reason Not to call them smell-element and taste-element, Since 'element' denotes inanimate and lifeless. Their nature as phenomena Must be absolutely accepted, For there is nothing else But the characteristic of holding their own nature. And the nature of phenomena as sense-bases Is absolutely stated in the Yamaka: "Is a phenomenon a sense-base? Yes." (Yamaka 1, Āyatana-yamaka 13). Therefore, even if they are not Smell-bases or taste-bases, Some nature of a sense-base Must be stated for them. If there were some nature of them Distinct from smell and taste, Like earth-element's nature Is distinct from touch, Then they would be included In the mind-object base. But if they have the nature of smell and taste, And also the nature of a sense-base, Then that which is smell and a sense-base Is the smell-base; And that which is taste and a sense-base Is the taste-base, this. The unconsumed, the state of the sense-base of smell cannot be prevented, and from the saying “three kinds of food” the absence of edible food there is understood. Therefore, the counting of forms should be done so that there is no contradiction with the Pāli. For in this way, the natural order is not violated. Regarding ‘jātiuṇṇā’, some say it is wool taken by tearing open the womb. ‘Sambhavabhedo’ means difference in existence. It is said that those with a consuming craving constantly afflicted by suffering, do not conceive a fetus even after engaging in sexual activity. Among the Form Brahmas, those of spontaneous birth, he specifies the Form Brahmas as those of spontaneous birth. Explaining the statement “thirty are reduced in those of spontaneous and sweat-born birth,” he says, “but when reduced,” and so on. But this does not agree with the Pāli. For in the Pāli, the arising of the sweat-born and spontaneously born sense-sphere beings who are without a nose is not mentioned. For in the Dhammahadaya Vibhaṅga: “At the moment of arising in the sense-sphere, for some, eleven sense-bases appear; for some, ten sense-bases; for some, another ten sense-bases; for some, nine sense-bases; for some, seven sense-bases appear.” It is stated, but it is not stated “eight sense-bases appear.” Likewise, it should be said “ten sense-bases appear” three times, and if there is an arising without a nose, “nine sense-bases appear” three times, but that is not stated. Thus, in the Yamaka, in the questions regarding the appearance of elements, the concomitance of nose, tongue, and body is mentioned. The similarity of decease and rebirth with aggregates, etc., is non-difference; dissimilarity is difference. Having shown just a method, and encompassing all that is said and unsaid, he says, “This method applies only to the Formless realms.” Because of the strength of the development of the Form and Formless realms, there is no arising in a bad destination after passing away from there. Therefore, he says, “from the decease of some in a good destination.” The purpose of the word ‘some’ in “the rebirth of some in a bad destination” should be sought. This might be the intention here: difference in body, difference in… Among those with such perception, some are born in states of woe, with rebirths rooted in three causes, and so on. Taking that rebirth of theirs as a state of woe, as a rebirth in a bad destination, that rebirth occurs only from a death in a good destination, from all good destinations, not only from some good destination. To prevent this, the term 'some bad destination' was used. Indeed, rebirth in states of woe occurs only from a death in some good destination, not from a death in all good destinations. Or, rebirth in a bad destination is of two kinds: immediately following a death in some good destination, and following a death in a bad destination. There, to take only the former, avoiding the latter, it is said 'rebirth in some bad destination'. From a death without root causes, a rebirth with root causes (two-rooted and three-rooted) should be connected. Indeed, like the frog-deva's son, even a three-rooted rebirth can occur from a death without root causes. And from the opposite of each of these, it should be connected appropriately. In the specific distinctions like 'from a death in some good destination, a rebirth in some bad destination', whatever fits, such as 'from a death in some bad destination, a rebirth in some good destination', that should be connected – this is the meaning. The neuter gender is used with a view to what is merely fitting, or 'should be connected' should be understood as an impersonal verb. However, in cases like 'from a non-exalted external object, to an exalted internal object', the opposite connection should not be made. For there is no rebirth in the immaterial realms, with a non-exalted external object, from a death with an exalted internal object. The opposite of 'from a four-constituent immaterial death, a five-constituent sense-sphere rebirth' is already connected by itself. And there is no opposite for 'from a past-object death, a present-object rebirth'. And thus, the specific distinctions have been shown in detail. But the non-specific distinctions should be connected in each category, in terms of death and rebirth connection there and there, as 'from a five-constituent sense-sphere (death), a five-constituent sense-sphere (rebirth)... and so on... from a non-applied-thought, non-sustained-thought (death), a non-applied-thought, non-sustained-thought (rebirth)'. However, for a four-constituent (death), a four-constituent (rebirth) is already connected by itself. By this same method, it is possible to understand. that no distinct difference is shown in the five aggregates and so on. Therefore, without a cause, there, without a cause. The bonds of the joints of the limbs and minor limbs are the limb and minor limb joint bonds, for those who cut them. When the eye and so on have ceased, it should be understood that this is said referring to a state of extreme weakness. For even after the five-door consciousness, death was shown previously. And in the Yamaka (Yama. 1. Āyatanayamaka.120) – “For whom the eye-base ceases, does the mind-base cease?” “Yes.” “Or for whom the mind-base ceases, does the eye-base cease?” “For those with consciousness, without eyes, who are passing away, their mind-base ceases, but their eye-base does not cease. For those with eyes, who are passing away, their mind-base ceases, and their eye-base also ceases.” – Thus, the cessation of the eye-base and so on together with the death-consciousness is stated. The remaining condition, ignorance and so on, is obtained for consciousness by this, thus it is the condition of the remaining obtained, the formations. In that realm of kamma and so on, covered by ignorance and its dangers, which is the place of arising as the object of the rebirth-consciousness, because craving is not abandoned, and because the previously arisen continuum has matured, consciousness, inclined and sloping towards the rebirth-place, proceeds. Thus he says, “craving bends.” Co-arisen formations are the volitions co-arisen with the javana-consciousness close to death, or all contacts and so on. They throw consciousness into that rebirth-place, the realm of kamma and so on; they act as if throwing, meaning they function as the cause for the establishment of consciousness in that realm by way of rebirth. That is that consciousness, consciousness by way of the continuum of death, rebirth, and consciousness close to them, a unity brought about. Being bent by craving… …proceeds. The bending, throwing, abandoning of the former support, relishing of the latter support, and proceeding without support occur for that very same consciousness by way of continuum, not for another. Thus it shows the continuum. And saying "by way of abiding," "this same consciousness runs on, transmigrates, not another,"