English
specific individuals, "of all those who are reborn" and so on is said. But the occasion is simply where they are. However, in the statement: "For all those who are passing away, at the moment of the mind's dissolution in the process, and at the moment of the arising of the path and its fruit in the formless realms, the truth of origin does not arise for them, and the truth of suffering does not arise," the phrase "the truth of suffering does not arise at the moment of the mind's dissolution in the process" is said in connection with mind... Here, only mind-born form is intended, not kamma-born or other forms arising without depending on mind, so some say. "For whom, indeed, the truth of origin does not arise" — by this conclusion, the person understood is not understood as depending on mind, but rather, whoever is of such a kind. Therefore, "for him, the truth of suffering does not arise" — by this, the truth of suffering is not said to be mind-dependent, but rather, whatever, at the moment of the mind's dissolution, whatever truth of suffering does not arise, this meaning is understood. Indeed, in the Yamaka, when distinguishing, there is no such thing as an undistinguished question. "For the Suddhāvāsa devas, when the second mind is present" — this, by the very last division, is said by way of showing for whom, where the truth of suffering arose, but not the truth of origin. But when that is shown, because of having the same course, those endowed with all previous minds from the second unwholesome mind are shown by that very means. For them too, indeed, there the truth of suffering arose, but for them there the truth of origin did not arise. And having done thus, in "for others, those of the four-constituents and five-constituents," the Suddhāvāsa devas as stated are not included. Just as, "For whom, where the truth of suffering arises, for him, there the truth of origin arose" (Yamaka 1. Saccayamaka.61) — in the explanation of this, "at the moment of the arising of the rebirth-consciousness of the Suddhāvāsa devas" (Yamaka 1. Saccayamaka.61) — by this very means, those endowed with the moment of the arising of rebirth-consciousness, having the same course, those endowed with the moment of the arising of all previous minds from the second unwholesome mind, are shown. So they are not included by "for others." Thus it should be seen here too. The word "for others" is for specifying those of the five-constituents, not those of the four-constituents. For indeed, those previously mentioned are to be excluded, like the Suddhāvāsa devas as stated, who are of the five-constituents. "For those who have realized, for them, there the truth of suffering arose, and the truth of the path arose" (Yamaka 1. Saccayamaka...) amaka.41) By this determination, the individuals and their spheres are taken as mutually delimited. Those who have attained realization in a certain sphere are to be understood as taken by the phrase “those who have attained realization.” Therefore, those who have attained realization in the sense-sphere, fine-material sphere, or immaterial sphere, and have been reborn in the fine-material sphere or immaterial sphere, as long as realization has not arisen there, are not included here. But they are not shown separately as being of the same category as those who have not attained realization in the Pure Abodes, as indicated in the earlier section “when the second thought of the Pure Abode beings is occurring.” By “those who have not attained realization” are taken those who have not attained realization everywhere and also there. To specify the time of inclusion for the Pure Abode beings among them, it is said “when the second thought of the Pure Abode beings is occurring” (yama. 1.saccayamaka.42). It should be understood that those who are endowed with the purification thought, whose next thought will attain the highest path, are shown as being of the same category as those endowed with thoughts prior to that, up to those endowed with the very last thought associated with craving. This is the method in other such cases. In the place where it says “at the moment of dissolution of a thought in the course of existence,” the moment of dissolution of the rebirth-linking thought should also be understood as included. Similarly, in the place where it says “at the moment of arising of a thought in the course of existence,” the moment of arising of the death-thought should also be understood as included. In the resolution of “For whom the truth of suffering does not cease, for them the truth of origination will not cease” (yama. 1.saccayamaka.116), in both sections it is stated “at the moment of dissolution of the path and fruit in the immaterial sphere” (yama. 1.saccayamaka.116), and not specified. Why? Because one who is endowed with the moment of dissolution of a single path and fruit is assigned to both sections. For among those taken by the determination “for whom the truth of suffering does not cease,” namely, those endowed with the moment of dissolution of path and fruit in the immaterial sphere, some, being endowed with the moment of dissolution of three fruits and two paths, without producing continuously having produced insight-delight and existence-delight in between, for those who will attain the higher paths, the truth of origin will cease. But for some of these, who attain the higher paths without producing craving in between, for those endowed with the moment of dissolution of path and fruit, the truth of origin will not cease. And it is shown that this method indicates that by the general statement made in the former part, what is to be stated in the latter part is excluded. The explanation of the Occurrence Section is finished. 3. Explanation of the Full Understanding Section 165-170. In the Full Understanding Section… and so on… Here, the three full understandings are obtainable. The qualification here is to show that all truths are not to be fully understood, just as all aggregates are not to be fully understood in the aggregate-pairs and so on, and to show that this section does not proceed by way of realization and development. To show full understanding and abandonment in the truths, it is said that the full understanding of discernment is for suffering, not the full understanding of abandonment. And for origin, the full understanding of abandonment, not the full understanding of discernment. But the full understanding of knowing is common, so it is stated in both. For the knowledge of the path reveals suffering and origin, so it is the full understanding of knowing, and because it accomplishes the tasks of discerning suffering, it is the full understanding of discernment, and because it makes origin not occur, it is the full understanding of abandonment. Thus, all three full understandings should be applied at the moment of the path. The explanation of the Full Understanding Section is finished. The explanation of the Truth Pairs is finished. 6. The Formations Pair 1. Explanation of the Designation Section 1. Just as the aggregates and so on were not divided before, so too the bodily formations and so on. Because they are not known, it divides the three formations with statements like “in-breaths and out-breaths are bodily formations” (Saṃyutta Nikāya 4.348). In the first meaning, “formation of the body,” the genitive case is in the sense of possession. In the second meaning, it is in the sense of agent. “Formation of speech” is the genitive case in the sense of object. And “formation of mind” is in the sense of agent. But considering that this is the meaning of the instrumental case, it is said, “the genitive case in the instrumental sense.” having made the statement.” 2-7. Because there is no meaning by way of a pure single word, the meaning shown by the root cycles of word analysis, where one in-breath or out-breath, etc., is obtained by two words, cannot be expressed by pure words like 'body' etc., or by the pure word 'formations'. Just as in word analysis, a part of a group is shown for the word 'form', and a collection of groups for the word 'group', and there is a desired meaning, so too, there is no desired meaning for each single word. But if it is said that 'body is bodily formation' etc., and if the compound word 'bodily formation' expresses one meaning without being separately clarified, then it speaks with the intention that the word 'bodily formation', acting in the sense of bodily formation, should be qualified by the word 'form' or the word 'body', like the word 'group'. This is the pure formations section, and by this, it shows the impropriety of the statement 'body is bodily formation' etc., because only the desired meanings shown by word analysis are to be taken in this section, and these are not grasped by words like 'body' etc. Here, however, in the formations pair, because the words 'body' etc., and the word 'formations' are not in apposition, if it were said 'body is formation, formations are body' etc., there would be a relinquishing of the desired meaning and an embracing of an undesired meaning. Therefore, the pure formations root cycles were not stated. But by the word analysis section and its root cycles, when it is shown that the word 'formations' is to be qualified by non-appositional words like 'body' etc., a doubt arises: "Is that bodily formation, qualified by the word 'body' which functions in another sense, also qualified by 'vocal' and 'mental' which function in another sense, or is it something else?" And similarly in the remaining cases. Here, it should be understood that to show these in another place, six pairs are stated in direct and reverse order, such as 'bodily formation, vocal formation' etc. In the Commentary, however, because it is stated in the place of the pure formations section, this method is called the pure formations section. The description of the Designation Section is finished. 2.