English
For there is no one else without a nose in the sense realm, apart from those in the womb, as it is not stated in the Dhammahadaya Vibhaṅga that “at the moment of rebirth in the sense sphere, eight bases appear for anyone.” So why is it not understood that in this case, and in the Indriya Yamaka, in the questions as shown, “yes” is said only with reference to spontaneous rebirth? Because in the Yamaka, a reply is not given when there is a possibility of doubt in a part of the meaning grasped by the conclusion. For when something is to be broken down, there is no giving of a reply. If there were, there would be no complete reply. So why is it not understood from this, “And for whom the faculty of joy arises, for them the faculty of sight arises? Yes,” that “there is no rebirth with joy for those in the womb”? “For whom do ten faculties appear at the moment of rebirth in the sense sphere? For beings in the womb, who are with causes and associated with knowledge, at the moment of rebirth, ten faculties appear: the faculty of body, the faculty of mind, or the faculty of femininity, or the faculty of masculinity, or the faculty of life, or the faculty of joy, or the faculty of equanimity, or the faculty of faith, and so on, as stated (Vibh. 1012). In the section on cessation, concerning the future tense, just as the cessation of that very mind is stated as future at the moment of its arising, so too the cessation of that very karmic continuum should be stated as future at its arising. Thus, it is stated in that way only for those that are arising everywhere, not for those that have arisen. For those that have arisen, however, the cessation of another future continuum should be stated as future, not of that very one. For its cessation is said to begin immediately after its arising. Therefore, even when there is a distinction between the ear and the eye in the continuum of Arahants, it is only by way of referring to the future tense that "For whom the eye-base will cease, for him the ear-base will cease?" "Yes." "Or for whom the ear-base will cease, for him the eye-base will cease?" "Yes." Both answers are appropriate. And because cessation is said to begin immediately after arising, but the statement of cessation refers to death as its completion, therefore, even when a part of the continuum has ceased in the present, it is called "incomplete cessation" because of what has not yet ceased, and thus its cessation is said to be at death. For it will be said: "Or for whom the faculty of joy ceases, for him the faculty of eye ceases?" "Yes." Therefore, here too, when cessation at death is intended, and whatever will cease in the present, that too is said to cease at death by way of completion, and so the answer "Yes" is appropriate. And in phrases like "those with eyes," the meaning is understood as "those who have acquired eyes," and so on. "For whom the eye-base does not cease, for him the ear-base will not cease?" "For all those who are arising, and for those without eyes who are passing away, for them the eye-base does not cease, but for them the ear-base will not cease." Here, excluding those in the formless realms who are in their last existence, All those who are reborn, and those who pass away without sight, are to be understood as included. For they are gathered in the second section, and because of this expectation, this word "all" is incomplete, and the word "without sight" is also incomplete. In "those who are final-existents in the formless realms," it should be understood that those who do not go from the formless realms to the five-constituent realms, even if they have no other rebirth, are included as "final-existents in the formless realms." This method applies to other similar cases. The description of the Process Section is finished. The description of the Sense-Base Dyad is finished. 4. The Element Dyad 1-19. The phrase "being obtainable" is stated with reference to the Element Dyad to indicate the unobtainability of the elements related to the sound element and those related to the eye-consciousness element, etc., in terms of passing away and rebirth, in the Process Section. The description of the Element Dyad is finished. 5. The Truth Dyad 1. The Designation Section Description of the Exposition Section 10-26. In "Is suffering the truth of suffering? Yes," although the word "suffering" occurs in all three: the suffering of suffering, the suffering of formations, and the suffering of change, and also in birth, etc., as in "birth is suffering," etc., that word, when it occurs elsewhere than the suffering of suffering, does not occur independently of another. Here, the pure word "suffering" is taken independently of another to purify the designation. Therefore, that which is suffering of suffering, because of its inherent nature of suffering without qualification, in that suffering of suffering, this word "suffering" applies, and that is exclusively the truth of suffering, hence "Yes" is stated. In the Pure Truth Section, among the origins mentioned in the analysis of truths, none exist in the resultant states, nor is there any cessation said to exist in the resultant states. And the word "path" occurs in the path-fruits and fruition-states because they are path-fruits, not because of the existence of path-functions. For these are tasks of deliverance that have been completed. And here, the word "path" means deliverance, not the fruit of deliverance. Therefore, for "origin is a truth," "cessation is a truth," "path is a truth," the answer "Yes" is given. Alternatively, when the terms are purified by term-purification, It is understood that the words such as suffering, etc., are taken here as specific characteristics of the truths. To show their absolute characteristic as specific to the truths, and the specific connection of the truths to those characteristics, the section on pure truths was stated. Therefore, because suffering and the others are specific characteristics of the truths and are absolutely true, it was said, "Is suffering a truth... and the path a truth? Yes." Just as here, so too in the sections on pure aggregates, etc., in the aggregate-couplet, etc., it is appropriate to take only those that are specific characteristics of the aggregates, such as form, etc. However, in the commentary (Yama. Aṭṭha. Khandhayamaka 38), by the statement, "Because whether it is form consisting of what is dear and pleasant, or form consisting of the great elements and derived form, all are included in the five aggregates, therefore one affirms 'Yes'," it is shown that even in the sections on pure aggregates, etc., others besides the specific characteristics of the aggregates, such as form, eye, suffering, etc., are also taken. The other meaning was stated in conformity with that. The description of the Section on Exposition is concluded. 2. Description of the Section on Occurrence 27-164. "Even of the Pure Abodes" - this was stated because there might be a doubt about their arising with the truth of suffering, due to their being noble ones. "Of a mind disjoined from craving" - this should be taken in the sense of the five-constituent existence. By "for whom the truth of suffering arises," all those who are arising are included in the occurrence: in the four-constituent existence, those endowed with the moment of arising of minds other than path and fruition; and in the five-constituent existence, those endowed with the moment of arising of all minds. Among these, who are determined by the conclusion, some are shown as endowed with the occurrence of a single division in suffering and its origin, by "at the moment of arising of a mind disjoined from craving in occurrence," because a division is seen of what is already taken by the conclusion. Therefore, the inclusion of those in the four-constituent existence is also appropriate. For there is no implication for those endowed with the arising of path and fruition in them, because those endowed with them are not taken by the conclusion. "This should not be taken here" - this refers to the fruition-attainment mind in the four-constituent existence, here in the truths. It is said that it should not be taken in the statement of arising. And here, "of all those who are reborn" is said to show the first arising of the karma-born process; non-percipient beings are also included here. But "at the moment of arising of a mind devoid of craving in the process" is said to show the arising of suffering unmixed with the arising of the truth of origin. "At the moment of craving's arising" refers to that which is mixed with it, the arising of the truth of origin. However, for those non-percipient beings, the arising of the truth of suffering in their process is not taken everywhere, nor is its cessation. The same method applies to the pair of the truth of the path. "For them, at the moment of rebirth, and at the moment of the arising of a mind devoid of craving" —thus, here, the occasion should be understood in terms of moments, it is said. If this were so, in the latter part of the explanation of "wherever the truth of suffering arises for someone, there the truth of origin will arise for them" (Yama. 1. Saccayamaka. 71), the statement "for others, those reborn in four-constituent or five-constituent existences, at the moment of mind's arising in the process, the truth of suffering arises for them there, and the truth of origin will arise" would not be appropriate. For indeed, at the moment of rebirth and at the moment of mind's arising, the truth of origin will not arise. Therefore, for individuals endowed with the moment of rebirth and the moment of mind's arising devoid of craving, in whichever sense-sphere or other realm that rebirth and mind's arising occur, the meaning of the word "there" in "for them there" is appropriate only in terms of the occasion (place). This is indeed the section on individuals and occasions. There, to show