English
For the three kinds of latent tendencies are stated to have their grounds for latency in terms of realms, feelings, and all that is encompassed by personality view. Therefore, among the three realms, in the sensual realm, and among the three feelings, in two feelings, the latent lust for sensual pleasures lies latent here. Thus, the specific grounds for latency in terms of realm and feelings should be combined. The phrase "in two feelings" is stated specifically to prevent the latent lust for sensual pleasures, when lying latent in feelings, from lying latent in all three, but only in two. It does not mean that it does not lie latent in any two feelings. Therefore, there is no purpose in specifying feelings by taking the sensual realm. It is clear that the ground for latency of the latent lust for existence, and that which is not a ground, and that which is not encompassed by personality view, is not a ground for latency for the latent lust for sensual pleasures. And just as when "in two feelings" is said, the two feelings other than the ground for latency of the latent aversion are taken, similarly, those feelings are taken other than the ground for latency of the latent lust for existence. And here, the latent lust for sensual pleasures, arising in other pleasant and agreeable forms, such as desirable forms, associated with the two feelings, operates with a craving for pleasant and agreeable happiness. Therefore, its latency in two feelings is stated. Even when it arises elsewhere, it lies latent, having followed these two feelings, and desires only happiness. Similarly, the latent aversion, arising in other unpleasant and disagreeable forms, such as undesirable forms, associated with painful feeling, is repelled by the unpleasantness of suffering, and is repelled only by suffering. Thus, it lies latent, having followed only painful feeling. Therefore, its latency in that is stated. Thus, by stating the latency of sensual lust and aversion in the three feelings, the arising of sensual lust and aversion is shown in objects taken as desirable, undesirable, or neutral, due to the nature of the object and due to perverted perception. Arising there, Indeed, they lie dormant in the three feelings. Or, here, the grasping of desirable objects, etc., should be understood through the three feelings, and the grasping of the sense-sphere, etc., refers to the sense-sphere existence, etc., which are the objects of the enjoyment of sense pleasures, etc. Therein, the latent tendency of sensual lust, lying dormant by way of enjoying existence, lies dormant in the sense-sphere. Lying dormant by way of enjoying sense pleasure, it lies dormant in pleasant and indifferent feelings. Aversion arises only by way of resisting suffering, so wherever it is resisted, it lies dormant only in painful feeling. However, in the form and formless existences, and in the form and formless states, there is no arising of the enjoyment of sense pleasures. Therefore, the lust lying dormant there should be understood as lust for existence. And since all that is included in the entire personality is grasped by the grasping of the three realms and the three feelings, it should be seen that in the explanations such as: “Where the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie dormant, there the latent tendency of wrong view does not lie dormant,” the place where the latent tendency of wrong view, etc., lies dormant, apart from the three realms and the three feelings, is not stated. But, it might be asked, does the latent tendency of aversion not lie dormant in the displeasure that arises from longing, when one fosters longing for the unsurpassed liberations? And similarly, should it not be said that sensual lust does not lie dormant in the joy and equanimity associated with renunciation? So are there not other sense-sphere feelings that are places where the latent tendency of wrong view, etc., lie dormant, apart from the places where these lie dormant? Let there be, but there is no other place for their lying dormant apart from the three realms and the three feelings. Therefore, that is not stated. However, since it is said: “Where the latent tendency of sensual lust, and the latent tendency of aversion, and the latent tendency of conceit do not lie dormant, there the latent tendency of wrong view and the latent tendency of doubt do not lie dormant?” “Yes.” Therefore, it should be understood that suffering is stated as the place where the latent tendency of aversion lies dormant, in a general sense, by taking it as a whole. Similarly, worldly pleasant and indifferent feelings are the places where the latent tendencies of sensual lust and conceit lie dormant. Furthermore, in the Sutta, it is said: “Here, friend Visākha, a bhikkhu reflects thus: ‘When shall I abandon displeasure?’ He thus” Having reflected, he abandons aversion by that, the latent tendency to aversion does not lie latent there. This is said with reference to the eradication of aversion by the non-returner's path, after generating sorrow based on renunciation, suppressing it, and making an effort. For there is no abandoning of aversion by aversion itself, nor abandoning of sorrow by sorrow itself. But it should be understood that here, due to being a place for the arising of aversion, all suffering is called "a place for the latent tendency to aversion to lie latent." This is a direct teaching, but that is an indirect teaching. And having done so, with reference to the eradication of the latent tendency to sensual desire by the non-returner's path, after suppressing it with the first jhāna, it is said: "Having quite secluded himself… he enters and abides in the first jhāna, he abandons lust by that, the latent tendency to lust does not lie latent there." Similarly, with reference to the eradication of the latent tendency to ignorance by the Arahant's path, after suppressing it with the fourth jhāna, it is said: "With the abandoning of pleasure… he enters and abides in the fourth jhāna, he abandons ignorance by that, the latent tendency to ignorance does not lie latent there." For it cannot be said that the latent tendency to ignorance does not lie latent at all in the equanimity of the mundane fourth jhāna, because it is said: "Here, the latent tendency to ignorance lies latent in all phenomena included in personality." Therefore, the equanimity of the fourth jhāna is the basis for the latent tendency to ignorance, and sorrow based on renunciation is not not the basis for the latent tendency to aversion; thus, its lying latent there should also be understood. For here, lying latent is not spoken of due to the absence of a basis, not due to its opposition as stated in the suttas, and due to the strong support of the path that eradicates it. And here, it cannot be said that all greed, except for the latent tendency to craving for existence, is the latent tendency to sensual desire, when there is a basis for lying latent in the object. For by lying latent in painful feeling and in the rūpa and arūpa realms, the latent tendency to wrong view Even greed conjoined with craving is just greed, not the latent tendency of sensual lust. If it were, its basis would have to be stated, just like that of the latent tendency of wrong view. But it is said that the basis for the latent tendency is its inclination according to one's disposition. Just as when one sees desirable forms and so on, or a feeling of pleasure, not yet obtained, or from not obtaining, or one sees something previously obtained, past, ceased, gone, transformed, the aversion that arises occurs only by striking against suffering, so suffering is stated as its basis for the latent tendency, not the object. Similarly, greed conjoined with the latent tendency of wrong view, arising through attachment to suffering and so on, occurs only through clinging to pleasure, so the two pleasant and agreeable feelings are stated as its basis for the latent tendency. Thus, for all greed, except for lust for existence, its nature as the latent tendency of sensual lust is not contradictory. And they cling and are averse to the same object. Here, lust has a disposition for pleasure, aversion has a disposition for suffering, so their bases for latent tendencies are different. And having done so, it is said: "Where the latent tendency of sensual lust lies latent, does the latent tendency of aversion lie latent? No." But in the commentary, after stating the arising of displeasure in two feelings and in a desirable object, it is said: "But that is merely displeasure, not the latent tendency of aversion." Therefore, just as aversion there is not the latent tendency of aversion, so too, greed co-arising with the latent tendency of wrong view, which arises in suffering and so on, is understood as not being the latent tendency of sensual lust. As for what is said: "But that is merely displeasure, not the latent tendency of aversion," here, "not the latent tendency of aversion" should be understood as "there is no latent tendency of aversion." For there is no suspicion of displeasure being the latent tendency of aversion. Lest the teaching appear confused, the arising of lust for existence might also appear to be stated as occurring through making two feelings in the sense-sphere its object. Therefore, by a specific object Such a teaching was made for showing distinction, because there is no distinction in co-arisen feeling— this is the meaning. The description of the section on arising-places is finished. The Great Section 1. Description of the Section on Latent Tendencies 3. "Lies latent" and "arises"— these present-tense usages should be understood in terms of their occurrence and cessation. For indeed, the cessation and cutting off of latent tendencies is only by the path, not before that. 20. "They do not arise in one place, nor do they make one phenomenon their object"— here, by the former,