English
The three yamakas with the smell, taste, and tangible ayatanas have similar solutions, and are said with reference to beings in the rūpāvacara realm, to be solved by "those with eyes, those without smell," and so on. For in them, the seed of rebirth produced by karma of dispassionate desire is of such a nature that the nose and so on, and smells and so on, do not exist. Because of the similar solution with the nose-ayatana yamaka— this means because of the similar solution with the nose-ayatana yamaka among those rooted in the eye-ayatana. But there, the solution occurred with "those with eyes, those without noses, arising," and so on, whereas here, in those rooted in the nose-ayatana, "whose nose..." the eye-base arises, does the tongue-base arise for him? Yes, it should be answered. Is there no similar answer? It is true. But just as there, the tongue and body-base pairs are similar in answer to the nose-base pair, so here too, the tongue and body-base pairs are similar in answer. Therefore, the reason for the similar answer not being included in the Pāli text is that it is already there. And showing that the similar answer of the eye-base root pairs, taken as an example, is itself the reason as an example, it says, "because of the similar answer to the nose-base pair." Here, the similarity of answer should be seen as predominant among the nose-base root pairs. For in those tongue and body-base pairs, three questions should be answered with "yes," and the last question with "for those arising without a body, without a nose," and so on. Or, just as in the case of the feeling aggregate root pairs and the perception aggregate pairs, in the three mixed time divisions, the acknowledgment of the answer as the aforementioned statement should be made with "yes" as the response, and since there is nothing new to be said, no answer is given. Similarly here, the tongue-base pair rooted in the nose-base is not included in the Pāli text because there is nothing new to be said. This meaning is clear. However, the body-base pair might be answered according to the second question. And that is similar in answer to the nose-base pair among the eye-base root pairs. Therefore, the meaning here should be seen as: because the answer to the question that needs to be answered is similar to that of the nose-base pair, the remaining ones are not included in the Pāli text. "Thus" is said only in the sense of general non-inclusion in the Pāli text, not in the sense of general reason. And because there is no difference and little difference in the co-existence of the nose, tongue, and body bases when they arise in those not born from the womb and at the time of the completion of the bases in those born from the womb, in one nose-base pair... when two others are resolved. And when those rooted in the nose-faculty are resolved, it should be understood that the two others rooted in them are not resolved. “Together with the form-faculty and the mind-faculty” means together with the form-faculty and the mind-faculty mentioned in the question, “For whom the form-faculty arises, for him the mind-faculty arises?” For in the pair of mind-faculty rooted in the form-faculty, the similar resolution of the initial questions in the pairs of smell, taste, and touch is stated as the reason for the non-resolution of the pairs. And the second questions should be resolved with a rejoinder, so the resolution should not be done in the manner stated before, and the initial questions should not be done. Here, “because of similar resolution with the lower ones” means that the pairs of taste and touch rooted in the smell-faculty, and the pair of touch rooted in the taste-faculty, should be resolved with a rejoinder, so the resolution should not be done in the manner stated before. For those that should be done, it means that the pairs of mind-faculty and dhamma-faculty rooted in smell, taste, and touch have a similar resolution to the pairs of mind-faculty and dhamma-faculty rooted in the eye-faculty and the other five faculties. The pairs of sound-faculty rooted in the eye-faculty and so on, and all those rooted in the sound-faculty, are said to be resolved by showing that they obtain resolution only through non-resolution. Thus it is said, “Sixty-six pairs are said to be resolved.” Here, in “one born blind and one born deaf,” it should be understood that one born blind and deaf is included by the mention of one born deaf. “For those with a nose and with eyes” is said with reference to the fully developed faculty of an apparitional being. Here, the word “eva” (only) should be placed after “vuttanti” (is said), so that just as “for those with a nose and without eyes” is said with reference to an undeveloped faculty, “for those with a nose and with eyes” is not like that. But this is said only with reference to a fully developed faculty. Therefore, it is said with reference to one born deaf as well. they are not prevented. 22-254. When it asks about the eye-sense-sphere in the rūpī-brahmaloka, it speaks seeing only the simultaneous arising of eye and ear there as a rule. But in the case of the occasion-turn, because that person is not touched, it is said "yes" (Yama. 1.āyatanayamaka.22) that wherever the eye-sense-sphere arises in the kāma-dhātu and rūpa-dhātu, the ear-sense-sphere also certainly arises there. Why is it affirmed: "Or for whom the form-sense-sphere will arise, for him will the eye-sense-sphere arise? Yes"? Is it not that for one who will go to the state of being in the womb and then attain final Nibbāna, the form-sense-sphere will arise at rebirth, but not the eye-sense-sphere? Because for whom the form-sense-sphere will arise, for that same individual, even if the eye-sense-sphere continuum does not arise after the arising of the form-sense-sphere, it is affirmed for what will be. Why then is it affirmed: "Or for whom the form-sense-sphere will not arise, for him will the eye-sense-sphere not arise? Yes"? Is it not that for a last-existence being in the womb, being reborn, standing from before the eleventh week, the form-sense-sphere will not arise, but the eye-sense-sphere will not not arise? Because the future arising that will be in that existence is not spoken of as future. For in another existence, the initial arising of each sense-sphere continuum that will occur at rebirth and in the course of existence, that future arising is spoken of as such, being included in the future present. But what will occur in the course of that very existence is not spoken of as a future arising, being included in the present present. Here, the distinction of past, present, and future times for what arises due to kamma is intended in terms of time. Having done so, in the Indriya Yamaka (Yama. 3.indriyayamaka.368), "For whom the female faculty arises, for him will the male faculty arise? For last-existence females being reborn, and those females who are in the rūpāvacara and arūpāvacara having attained the formless realm, they will attain final Nibbāna, and those women who, by this same nature, having shown themselves in a few existences, will attain final Nibbāna, for them, when they arise, the female faculty arises, but for them, the male faculty will not arise,” it is said. Indeed, for all of them, in that existence, the male faculty will not arise due to the possibility of a change of gender, but regarding the non-existence of its initial arising in a future existence, it is said, “but for them, the male faculty will not arise.” For in a future existence, the non-occurrence of its initial arising is intended. And having done so, the taking of existences as “having shown themselves in a few existences” is done. From the saying, “the acquisition of sense bases is birth,” when the meaning is taken that for one who has taken rebirth by kamma that produces a particular sense base, that inevitable sense base arises until the perfection of the sense base, then the answering of the two questions becomes well-explained. And when this is so, in statements like, “But for whom the ear-base will not arise, for them the eye-base will not arise? For those who are final-existents, arising in the five-constituent realm, and for those who, having arisen in the formless realm, will attain final Nibbāna, for them, when they arise, the ear-base will not arise, but for them, the eye-base will not arise,” even final-existents and others who arise in the womb are included. And having done so, in the Indriya Yamaka, “But for whom the faculty of joy arises, for them the faculty of sight arises? Yes,” this too becomes well-explained. Because the kamma that produces the faculty of joy definitely produces the faculty of sight, and because it arises even in the womb until the arising of the faculty of sight, its arising is to be welcomed. But as for what is said, “But for whom, where the form-base arose, for them there the nose-base arises? For those passing away from the sense-sphere, for those without a nose, in the sense-sphere when being reborn in the form realm, for them there the eye-base arises, but for them there the nose-base does not arise.” Here, what is said as “for those without a nose, when being reborn in the sense realm” should be understood as referring to those who will die before the eleventh week, who have taken rebirth through kamma that does not produce a nose-base. “For whom, where the nose-base does not cease, for them there the eye-base will not cease? For those being reborn in the sense realm, for those without a nose, when passing away from the sense realm, for those in the form realm, for them there the nose-base does not cease, but for them there the eye-base will not cease.” Here, the phrase “for those without a nose, when passing away from the sense realm” indicates that there is a passing away for those in the womb, even when the nose-base has not yet arisen.