English
they say that among the sixteen consciousnesses mentioned, the moment of arising is that of the first consciousness, and the moment of ceasing is that of the sixteenth consciousness. However, the moments of arising and ceasing should be understood as those of matter itself. "Only in the moment of existence" means: if it is taken only in the moment of existence of that season, then it is said that "matter endures for sixteen consciousness-moments," because its existence is delimited by exactly sixteen consciousnesses. "Without taking the moment of arising" means: if, in the moment of existence of the season, the moment of arising is not taken, but the moment of ceasing is taken, then it is said that "matter endures for seventeen consciousness-moments," because one consciousness-moment, including the moment of arising, is taken. It is said "enduring for more than sixteen consciousness-moments" because the moment of ceasing is excluded. Thus, having shown that when the moments of arising and ceasing are taken or not taken, matter can endure for sixteen or seventeen consciousness-moments, or for more than that, now, showing the established view on this, he begins with "Because..." There, "arising in its moment of existence" means: because rebirth-linking is also included among the sixteen consciousnesses arising in the moment of existence of that season, therefore, the moment of arising of the season is taken in the moment of existence. And when the moment of ceasing is not taken, the meaning intended is "enduring for more than sixteen consciousness-moments," as will be stated in the commentary thus: "While matter exists, sixteen consciousnesses arise and cease, but that [matter] ceases together with the seventeenth consciousness." Or, if the moment of ceasing is taken, the meaning intended is "enduring for sixteen consciousness-moments" – this is the connection. And here, "enduring for more than sixteen consciousness-moments" is said assuming that the moment of arising of the rebirth-linking consciousness is taken. However, since in the commentary on the Analysis of Dependent Origination, it is said: "two bhavangas, adverting..." seeing, receiving, investigating, determining, five javanas, two tadārammaṇas, one cuti-citta— thus fifteen citta-moments have passed, and in the remaining one citta-moment duration” (VibhA. 227), and similarly, ending with tadārammaṇa, “one cuti-citta, at its cessation, in that very one citta-moment duration, the paṭisandhi-citta arises” (VibhA. 227) will be stated. Therefore, even with the sixteen citta-moment duration of rūpa, the purpose is achieved. Thus it is said, “the sixteen citta-moment duration is intended.” Nevertheless, having arisen, it becomes a condition for the vibration of bhavaṅga, not while it is arising; thus the seventeen citta-moment duration should be understood. The inherent subtlety of nutriment is due to its nature as an upādā-rūpa. Here, the nutriment absorbed by the mother, like external anointing, becomes a condition for the arising of nutriment-born rūpas in that embryo’s continuum. Just as nutriment in the lineage of nutriment-born rūpas, so too the nutriment of the remaining thirty continuums produces rūpa. Thus, the nutriment in the stomach does not produce rūpa because it is season-born; it produces it only in the grasped place, and having gone through the nutrient-carrying channels, it pervades the body— this should be understood. And citta— here, the word “and” collects only the kamma of the counterparts, not the dhammas associated with citta. Thus it is said, “it is stated due to the precedence of citta.” When it is said, “it takes cittuppāda, as in ‘citta has arisen’ and so on (Dhs. 1), not just one dhamma like kamma-cetanā,” then raising the objection, “just as the causes and so on of citta-born rūpa, the dhammas associated with citta, are also producers, so too for kamma-born rūpa, those associated with kamma are also,” to provide a refutation for that, it states, “and kamma-born” and so on. Of rūpa— of the rūpa-moment, or of the duration of rūpa. Only the method of presentation should be seen, as the meaning that rūpa and arūpa dhammas manifest in one moment at the paṭisandhi-moment itself is not intended. . Therefore it is said, "even beyond that, because of the co-arising of form and formless states." Just as the rule "only at the moment of rebirth-linking" should not be taken, so too the rule "manifestation only at one moment" should not be taken, thus he says "nor is this..." etc. This is only for the purpose of clarifying that they are not simultaneous, not for the purpose of clarifying co-arising. For this is a discourse on the duration of existence. If it is so, just as fruits and leaves, so too if form and formless phenomena change slowly or quickly. Because of unequal duration, because of unequal time. In the uninterrupted, in the continuous. Thereby it clarifies continuous progression. This is a discourse on the duration of existence. The progression of mind-born forms and the like is not continuous in the same way as kamma-born forms, so he says, "referring to the progression of kamma-born forms." Or, because kamma-born forms are the root of the others, they are primary, so it is said, "referring to the progression of kamma-born forms." The state of being a counterpart to Nibbāna in the attainment of cessation should be understood as being due to its not producing consciousness and its being unmolested. "Stepping foot by foot," by having a limping foot, placing a foot near the foot one has stepped on. For he who has a quick stride and a limping foot is intended here, so he says, "the meaning is stepping quickly, quickly." "Ceasing together," this is said assuming that kamma-born form is intended here. But season-born form continues even after death. "As said before," "form has seventeen thought-moments, the formless has one part of that" (Vibh. Mūlaṭī. 20, Miscellaneous Discussions), thus the type of duration was stated. "From co-arising," from simultaneous arising. For this word "eka" (one) has the same meaning. "One aspect to be seen," one aspect to be seen through knowledge and comprehension. In this way there would be sixteen aspects, otherwise there would be twenty, or these aspects could be more than that. "Of that," of the last kamma-born. "Below the sixteen," in the immediately past sixteen of the final sixteen. "Of the last," of the last consciousness there. As if having different cessations. Not wishing to state the reason for placing the last karma-born (rupa) in the same arising, he says doubtfully, "But if..." By "all" and so on, he shows an over-extension there. What is to be avoided is non-arising, single cessation. What is to be taken is single arising, diverse cessation. Both are not present then, because they do not arise. For that reason, he says, "due to the non-origination of karma-born form." "Before that" means prior to the arising of the last karma-born form. "Of another" means of a mind other than the one at whose arising moment it arose. He says, "excluding forms arisen at the static and dissolution moments," because there is no single arising for what arises at the static moment, and no diverse cessation for what arises at the dissolution moment. "By that" means by form. "A connection like a chain" shows that an uninterrupted connection is intended here by "succession." "Otherwise" means if even what is interrupted is taken and called "succession." Indeed, there is no immediate conditionality for form-phenomena as there is for non-form-phenomena. Therefore, by not taking form-phenomena that arise at the dissolution moment of form-phenomena, "forty-eight" was stated. But if they were taken, it would be forty-nine, so he says, "the statement 'forty-nine karma-born' would have to be made." "Due to being well-explained" means due to being easily explained, or due to being well-explained by showing the method. For that reason, he says, "by this method," and so on. There, "that" refers to form. "By that" means by form. "In both cases" means in the succession of the last karma-born form, and before that. "Of another" means of a form that arose at the static moment of one mind and then of another mind. "Of that" refers to form. And here, the form that is said to cease in the succession of the last karma-born form should be understood as the form that arose earlier. "By the form of the four continuities," and so on, shows the inclusion as stated. "Here" means in this explanation of diverse non-arising and single cessation. "At the static moment" means because both the form that arose at the static moment of a non-form and a form, and the non-form and form, are shown. "Of what is not shown" means just as here, so there... having divided it, for what was not shown. Why, in this explanation by means of what is born of later kamma, is the grasping of thirty forms born of kamma made? It is said: "thirty... and so on... joined." Born from that kamma, they are born of that kamma, among them. It constructs, thus it is a constructor (saṅkhāra); life and that constructor, thus life-constructor, meaning lifespan. They are constructed by life, thus life-constructors, meaning heat and so on. At the moment of arising of another: the form that arose at the moment of arising of a certain consciousness, at the moment of arising of the seventeenth (consciousness) from that, and what arose at the moment of standing, at the moment of standing of another— this is the connection. "It is said, this is the intention" -- even though this contradicts the Pāḷi, it is said to show that it appears in the commentary, this is the intention here. Why? The Pāḷi proceeds with reference to forms born of consciousness, but in the commentary, it refers to forms born of kamma. So by what reason does it contradict that? It is said: "four... and so on... it must be," meaning, what is produced.