English
arising in a single mind-moment is denied. By the latter, (arising) in a single object (is denied)— this is the distinction. In the reverse of the section on persons and places, the non-lying-latent place of that particular latent tendency for those particular persons should be understood by natural abandonment. "For three persons, in painful feeling, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent in them there, but the latent tendency of aversion does not not lie latent in them there. And for those same persons, in the rūpa-sphere and arūpa-sphere, which are not included (in the kāma-sphere), the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent in them there, and the latent tendency of aversion does not lie latent in them there"— this is said with reference to the natural non-lying-latent place of sensual lust, etc., in painful feeling, etc. "For two persons, everywhere, the latent tendency of sensual lust does not lie latent, and the latent tendency of aversion does not lie latent" (Yama. 2. Anusaya-yamaka. 56)— this is by the abandonment of latent tendencies. Here, by the former method, considering the place, the non-lying-latent of existing latent tendencies for a person is stated. By the latter method, considering the person, the non-place of the kāma-sphere, etc., for them (is stated). The description of the section on latent tendencies is finished. 2. Description of the Section on Those with Latent Tendencies 66-131. In the sections on "having latent tendencies," "abandoning," and "fully understanding," the person is spoken of as "having latent tendencies," "abandoning," "fully understanding." And for a person, the state of having or not having latent tendencies, etc., does not exist by way of a specific existence, such as "having latent tendencies in this existence." Nor does it exist by way of a specific latent tendency in an existence, such as "having latent tendencies by sensual lust in this existence, or by some other (tendency) in others." Similarly, in two feelings, one has latent tendencies by way of sensual lust. But in painful feeling, one is without latent tendencies. this too is not so. Indeed, feeling is not the sphere for a person, but rather for latent tendencies. But for that latent tendency, that particular sphere of latent tendency, for a person, by that particular latent tendency, due to being accompanied by latent tendency, becomes a sign for the abandoning and full understanding of each of them. And the non-sphere of latent tendency for being without latent tendency and so on. Therefore, in cases of 'sphere', without making a locative designation, the ablative 'from which, from that' is used in the sense of a sign, or in cases of abandoning and full understanding, in the sense of the source. Indeed, from that sphere, the act of departing, destruction, abandoning, and full understanding (occur). There, 'from which' means, in the direct order, from the place of latent tendency, in the reverse order, from the place of non-latent tendency. Indeed, to show the nature of being a sign and a source for latent and non-latent tendencies, it is said, 'In the form realm, in the formless realm, from that, one is accompanied by the latent tendency of conceit' (yama.2.anusayayamaka.77), 'one abandons' (yama. 2.anusayayamaka.143), and 'In painful feeling, from that, one is without the latent tendency of sensual passion' (yama. 2.anusayayamaka.110), 'one does not abandon' (yama. 2.anusayayamaka.174-176), and so on. In these, the form realm and so on are designated by locative designation. However, in the Commentary, since the place of latent tendency itself was shown by the answer to the fourth question, having clarified this meaning that 'from which' refers to the place of latent tendency even in the first question concerning that meaning, again, to show the meaning of the word 'from which', it was said, 'one is accompanied by the latent tendency of sensual passion that has arisen'. That appears to be a careless writing. Indeed, one is not accompanied by a latent tendency that has already arisen, and the ablative cannot be said to refer only to the place where it is fit to arise. Indeed, for those not included, it is not a place fit for the arising of latent tendencies, so it appears to be so. Thus, the meaning here should be understood as follows: 'from which, by what has arisen' means 'from which it is to arise', therefore, the ablative is used for the place fit for arising. Similarly, 'by that which arises in all phenomena'. If the prohibition of arising is not made, since non-arising is not desired, all... by having come to be of a nature to arise in unwholesome states, one removes the state of not arising. And as for “everywhere,” this meaning of “in every place” is not impossible. For grammarians desire the particle “ttha” to be in places other than the locative. The description of the Section on Latent Tendencies with Residue is finished. 3. Description of the Section on Abandoning 132-197. In the Section on Abandoning, it should not be stated that one who abandons the latent tendency of sensual lust, etc., with residue, is one who abandons them, because there is a state of not abandoning. Therefore, in the determination, it is stated that only one who abandons completely is one who abandons. Therefore, it is said: “Does one who abandons the latent tendency of conceit abandon the latent tendency of sensual lust? No.” (Yama. 2. Anusaya Yamaka. 132). But since the interrogative term only asks about the act of abandoning, and does not make a determination, therefore, referring to the existing abandonment, it is said: “Does one who abandons the latent tendency of sensual lust abandon the latent tendency of conceit? He abandons that which is of the same nature.” In the reverse order, however, the non-abandonment is determined and asked about by the determinative term and the interrogative term. Therefore, those for whom there is no abandonment in the sense of complete abandonment, excluding those who abandon, the rest are said not to abandon by the very fact of their non-abandonment, and it should be understood that they are not excluded by the existing abandonment. In the commentary on “Excluding the one endowed with the Anāgāmi path and the eighth person, the remaining individuals do not abandon the latent tendency of sensual lust, and do not abandon the latent tendency of doubt” (Yama. 2. Anusaya Yamaka. 165), it is said: “The ordinary person does not abandon due to the absence of the full understanding of abandonment; the rest, because those latent tendencies have been abandoned by them” (Yama. Aṭṭha. Anusaya Yamaka 132-197). Although for some, the latent tendency of doubt, and for some, both, have been abandoned by the rest, nevertheless, the abandonment of the latent tendency of doubt by stream-enterers, etc., is not the cause of the non-abandonment of both. Therefore, it cannot be said that they “do not abandon” because they have been abandoned. to abandon it, and they do not abandon the latent tendency of sensual lust—this is stated to show that those individuals are included by this conclusion. No reason should be given there. However, the reason for the doubtful meaning that was asked should be given. If so, should it be said, “because the others have abandoned that latent tendency”? No, it should not be said, because when it is asked by refuting, “one who does not abandon the latent tendency of sensual lust does not abandon the latent tendency of wrong view and the latent tendency of doubt,” the reason should be given with reference to the latent tendencies of wrong view and doubt in a similar answer. Therefore, the meaning should be understood as: “because those latent tendencies are abandoned,” meaning, because those latent tendencies of wrong view and doubt are abandoned, they do not abandon the latent tendencies included in the doubtful meaning. The explanation of the Section on Abandoning is finished. 5. Explanation of the Section on Abandoned 264-274. In the Section on Abandoned, the teaching is commenced solely by way of those who have attained the fruits, which is stated with reference to the direct order. For in the reverse order, the teaching is also taken by way of ordinary individuals. And by the general statement “solely by way of those who have attained the fruits,” it indicates that those who are endowed with the path are not included. For in the case of those endowed with the path, whose minds are momentary and are the absolute opposite of latent tendencies, no latent tendency is fit to arise, nor is it brought to a state of unfitness to arise. Therefore, they are not included in the sections on latent tendencies, with latent tendencies, abandoned, and arising. 275-296. In the Section on Occasion, each latent tendency, being brought to a state of unfitness to arise in its own occasion, is abandoned; and not being brought to a state of unfitness to arise, it is not abandoned. Thus, the statements of abandoned and not abandoned indicate only that occasion. Therefore, it is stated that both are not to be said in a non-occasion. “It is called abandoned together with that in a common place” means it is called abandoned in a common occasion together with that, not in a common time. The explanation of the Section on Abandoned is finished. 7. Explanation of the Section on Elements 332-340. In the Section on Elements, “they lie having followed in the continuums” means that in whichever continuum they are not abandoned, they lie in that continuum, having followed in a state of not being abandoned, in a state of unfitness to arise. For fitness to arise obtains a suitable cause. are born having abandoned, is also suitable here. And here, the six negative statements like "not in the sense-sphere" are not determinations of the sphere-qualifier. If it were said, "for one who passes away not from the sense-sphere,