English
it must be accepted that it comes into range even at the moment of origination. For in the mind-door, nothing in the past or other times does not come into range. And regarding the mind-door, it is said: “Eleven consciousness-moments have passed, then with a lifespan of the remaining five consciousness-moments.” And the moment of abiding of consciousness mentioned here, that must be investigated whether it exists or not. For in the Cittayamaka, it is said: “Has arisen, is arising? It has arisen at the moment of dissolution, but it is not arising”— this much. This was said, not said, “at the static moment and at the dissolution moment.” Similarly, “Is that which is not arising not arisen? It is not arising at the dissolution moment, but it is not not arisen,” only this much was said, not said, “at the static moment and at the dissolution moment.” Thus, in the full explanation of “not ceased, not ceasing, not ceasing, not ceased,” by saying “at the arising moment and in the future” and not saying “at the static moment,” and in the past time section, by saying “the mind at the dissolution moment has passed the arising moment” and not saying “at the static moment,” it indicates the absence of a static moment for the mind. For in the suttas, “a change is perceived in that which is static,” since there is no change in that one (mind) itself, it cannot be said that “that in which a change is perceived is static continuity,” or that a static state is that which is endowed with two moments. And the arising of matter at the moment of the mind’s cessation, mentioned here, should be investigated: “If the truth of origin ceases for someone, does the truth of suffering arise for them? It was said, ‘No’” (Yamaka 1.136). And the cessation of matter at the moment of the mind’s arising, mentioned here, should be investigated: “If wholesome phenomena arise for someone, do unwholesome phenomena cease for them? It was said, ‘No,’ etc.” (Yamaka 3.163). Nor can it be said that the rejection was made only with reference to mind-born matter, because there is no context of mind-born matter, and because the word ‘unwholesome’ does not apply only to mind-born matter. If one were to give the reason that in the Saṅkhāra Yamaka, due to the statement of co-arising and co-cessation of bodily formations with mental formations, the word ‘unwholesome’ here refers only to mind-born matter, that too is not a valid reason. For by that statement, the co-arising and co-cessation of other matter with mind is not rejected, nor is the non-arising and non-cessation of various things allowed, nor is the unwholesome nature of anything other than mind-born matter prevented. Done. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the cessation of kamma-born phenomena, etc., which are unrejected, unpermitted, unprevented, and indeterminate, and which arise and cease together, occurs at the moment of the mind's arising, because the cessation of the mind at its arising moment is rejected by this. And remembering the Yamaka Pāli, since the mind disintegrates immediately after arising, at that moment the mind does not generate matter because it is perishing, nor does it become a helper to another generator of matter. Thus, the temperature (utu) that arose together with the rebirth-linking consciousness would generate matter at the moment of the arising of the subsequent consciousness. And if this is so, then there is no "before and after" from the co-generation of matter at the beginning of matter and non-matter. And the mind, which changes very quickly, with which it arises, it is possible to say that matter arises at that very mind-moment. For that reason, after the rebirth-linking consciousness, it (the mind) is not a condition by any condition for non-mind-born phenomena arising together with itself. And immediately after that, it attains stability, so the subsequent mind is a post-natal condition for it, not a co-natal condition. If so, should it be said, "For whom body-formation arises, for him speech-formation ceases? No" (Yama. 2. Saṅkhārayamaka.128)? No, because there is no beginning of matter's arising at the moment of the mind's cessation. For, directly, matter arises at the very moment of the mind's arising. But when the mind-moment has not yet passed, it does not perform its function as a pre-natal condition for generating matter. And non-matter is not a post-natal condition for it. This is said indirectly, referring to the non-attainment of a special state of stability. But after that, from the conclusion of the previous discourse, which ended with the summary statement beginning "And here, whatever this is...", it is connected with the statement "from that point onwards, the lineage of kamma-born matter does not continue." The meaning is "after the decease." But matter with matter, etc., as in the commentary. It is said, that there is no simultaneous arising and ceasing of material forms with immaterial forms, nor of immaterial forms with material forms, and therefore, material forms are conjoined with material forms, and immaterial forms with immaterial forms. The meaning is that the nature of the body is its constituent parts; a solid mass, a state of being a solid mass, meaning not a loose connection of masses like sesame or mung beans. "From simultaneous arising, etc." refers to the three types mentioned above. "Below" refers to the description of the material form section. "They are only fully accomplished" is said because in the description of the material form section, the term "fully accomplished" is used as a synonym for derivative forms, etc. What is the difference between "fully accomplished" and "accomplished"? A "fully accomplished" phenomenon is a natural state, delimited by beginning and end, produced by causes, and struck by the three characteristics. An "accomplished" phenomenon, however, can also be an unnatural state, produced by means such as naming or entering into attainments. "But the attainment of cessation" – by this, it should be understood that all conceptual designations of clinging are shown in part. The description of miscellaneous topics is finished. Description of the determination of sequence, etc. "To be abandoned by seeing, etc." – first, what is to be abandoned is mentioned first; second, what is to be abandoned is mentioned second. This is the sequence of abandonment. The progressively refined stages are arranged in sequence; this is the sequence of stages in the teaching, based on them. "The four foundations of mindfulness," etc. (Saṃ. Ni. 5.372, 382, 383; Vibha. 355) Since mindfulness, etc., can arise even in a single moment, this is merely the sequence of teaching. Discourses on giving, etc., are taught in progressive order of excellence, but here, the mention of the sequence of teaching for giving, etc., is due to the absence of arrangement based on origin, etc. And the sequence of teaching is called the sequence of the teaching itself, with that particular intention, because, due to the absence of the aforementioned arrangement, the simultaneous occurrence of many words is impossible, and therefore, they must be taught in some prior-posterior order. "By non-differentiation," means by taking them as a whole, without making distinctions between material forms, etc. "Also the objects of the eye, etc." means that the aggregate of material form is spoken of as a whole by referring to a part. "Thus" means in the manner stated here. "The king, lord of six doors," (Dhammapada Commentary, Erakapattana Naga King story) and "Mind is the forerunner of all states" (Dhammapada 1-2) because of these sayings, consciousness is the lord. In the aggregate of form, the saying "with defilements, subject to clinging" is to prevent the aggregate of form from being of that nature due to the existence of undefiled states, not to deny undefiled form. Here, the word 'eva' (only) in "only undefiled states are spoken of in the aggregates" should be understood as used inappropriately, the meaning is "undefiled states are spoken of in the aggregates themselves." The collection of all conditioned things together by common nature is the collection by common nature of all conditioned things. For all conditioned things, when collected by common nature, become the five aggregates like contact and so on. There, those that are similar in kind by the commonality of being afflicted and so on should be understood as "of common nature." Among these, the act of conditioning conditioned things, strong in the sense of accumulation, is called the "aggregate of formations," and other conditioned things like contact and so on, devoid of specific characteristics like affliction, are understood by the commonality of conditioning conditioned things. However, the natures of contact and so on are not separately expressible by the word 'aggregate,' and so it should be understood that the Tathagata, who knows the nature of phenomena, did not speak of aggregates of contact and so on. And by the meaning of suttas such as: "Whatever recluses or brahmins, monks, who proclaim the world and self to be eternal, all of them, relying on these five aggregates of clinging, or on one of them," the ultimate nature of the view of self and what belongs to self should be understood. And by this and by the suttas to be explained, it is said that a view arises which should not be spoken of as relying only on the aggregates in terms of a limited object and so on, because there is no substantial phenomenon apart from the aggregates and Nibbana. To remove the objection that "not only five" due to the existence of other things expressible by the word 'aggregate,' such as the aggregate of virtue, it says "and because others are included in them." The afflictive nature of feeling should be understood in terms of suffering-suffering, suffering due to change, and suffering due to formations. For that associated with lust and so on,